Provenance Working Group Face-to-Face

Minutes of 22 June 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
Seen
Craig Trim, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, David Corsar, Deborah McGuinness, Graham Klyne, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James McCusker, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Olaf Hartig, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Reza B'Far, Sam Coppens, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies, Trung Huynh, Unknown hook, Yolanda Gil
Guests
Hook Hua
Regrets
Deborah McGuinness, James McCusker, Simon Miles, Ivan Herman, Olaf Hartig, Sam Coppens
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Timothy Lebo, Paolo Missier
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon link
  2. keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note link
  3. rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk link
  4. add a suitable primary source for the definition of primary source link
  5. replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) link
  6. replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) link
  7. prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF link
  8. remove table 8 from prov-dm link
  9. the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event link
  10. constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology link
  11. mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n link
  12. prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints link
Topics
  1. Admin

    The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.

  2. PROV-DM

    The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features

    1. Collections

      The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.

    2. Contextualization

      The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".

  3. Primer

    After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.

  4. PROV-DM continued

    the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call

    1. primary source

      Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.

    2. tracedTo

      Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.

    3. data types

      PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.

    4. incompatibility prov-dm and prov-o and moving to last call

      Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.

  5. Last Call Straw Poll

    The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.

  6. PROV-O

    The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.

  7. PROV-N

    The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.

  8. PROV-CONSTRAINTS

    James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

15:32:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-irc

15:32:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

15:33:01 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

15:33:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

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

15:33:02 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Face-to-Face
15:33:03 <trackbot> Date: 22 June 2012
15:33:11 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

15:33:11 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes

15:34:39 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
15:35:08 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
15:43:15 <pgroth> is anyone on the telecon yet?

(No events recorded for 10 minutes)

Paul Groth: is anyone on the telecon yet?

15:43:50 <dgarijo> I tried, but it said that it is restricted at this time

Daniel Garijo: I tried, but it said that it is restricted at this time

15:43:55 <pgroth> ok

Paul Groth: ok

15:45:56 <GK> I'm not sure much of tghe meeting I'll be able to follow...  I hadn't fully appreciated the time difference when I said I'd try to join in today.

Graham Klyne: I'm not sure much of tghe meeting I'll be able to follow... I hadn't fully appreciated the time difference when I said I'd try to join in today.

15:48:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

15:48:40 <Zakim> +??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0

15:48:49 <jun> zakim, ??P0 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P0 is me

15:48:49 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

15:49:34 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun

15:49:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

15:49:36 <Zakim> Attendees were jun

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jun

15:50:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

15:50:14 <Zakim> +??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0

15:50:25 <jun> Am I the only one dialing in? I was told I am the first participant of the conference

Jun Zhao: Am I the only one dialing in? I was told I am the first participant of the conference

15:50:28 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa

15:50:41 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2

15:50:42 <jun> zakim, ??P0 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P0 is me

15:50:43 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

15:50:49 <dgarijo> zakim, ??P2 is me

Daniel Garijo: zakim, ??P2 is me

15:50:49 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:52:30 <Luc> scribe: tlebo

(Scribe set to Timothy Lebo)

15:56:49 <tlebo> Zakim, who is on the phone?

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:56:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo

15:56:55 <tlebo> Zakime, I am happy

Zakime, I am happy

15:57:43 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

16:02:41 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

16:02:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo

16:02:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, zednik, tlebo, dcorsar_, GK, pgroth, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, dgarijo, jun, MacTed, sandro, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see hook, zednik, tlebo, dcorsar_, GK, pgroth, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, dgarijo, jun, MacTed, sandro, trackbot, stain

16:03:07 <Luc> guest:  Hook Hua
16:04:50 <Luc> regrets: Deborah McGuinness, James McCusker, Simon Miles, Ivan Herman, Olaf Hartig, Sam Coppens
16:06:08 <tlebo> The rest of the faces have arrived.

The rest of the faces have arrived.

16:06:31 <dgarijo> I am afraid I will only be able to attend around 2 hours, since it is getting late here :(

Daniel Garijo: I am afraid I will only be able to attend around 2 hours, since it is getting late here :(

16:08:09 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule

Daniel Garijo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule

16:08:10 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.

<pgroth> Summary: The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.
16:08:20 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-14

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-14

16:08:30 <pgroth> proposed: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon

PROPOSED: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon

16:08:36 <tlebo> +1

+1

16:08:37 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:08:39 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

16:08:56 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

16:09:02 <jcheney> 0 (was not present)

James Cheney: 0 (was not present)

16:09:03 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

16:09:16 <dcorsar_> 0 (was not present)

David Corsar: 0 (was not present)

16:09:29 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon

RESOLVED: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon

16:11:02 <tlebo> luc: Sandro has been our w3c contact; he is moving to other w3c tasks.

Luc Moreau: Sandro has been our w3c contact; he is moving to other w3c tasks.

16:11:10 <tlebo> ... ivan to be our new contact.

... ivan to be our new contact.

16:11:47 <tlebo> luc: review of what we've been doing and what we are to do.

Luc Moreau: review of what we've been doing and what we are to do.

16:11:57 <tlebo> ... first WD of DM in Sept.

... first WD of DM in Sept.

16:12:17 <tlebo> ... F2F2 led to good progress.

... F2F2 led to good progress.

16:12:26 <tlebo> ... now trying to prepare LCs.

... now trying to prepare LCs.

16:12:43 <tlebo> ... charter on homepage: Oct 1.

... charter on homepage: Oct 1.

16:12:56 <tlebo> ... we need to request charter extension.

... we need to request charter extension.

16:13:15 <tlebo> ... logistics on charter extension.

... logistics on charter extension.

16:13:33 <tlebo> ... request needs to be ready by end of July.

... request needs to be ready by end of July.

16:13:43 <tlebo> ... request is non-trivial.

... request is non-trivial.

16:14:04 <tlebo> ... we have one shot at the request. no more extensions.

... we have one shot at the request. no more extensions.

16:14:11 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

16:14:27 <GK> zakim, ??p3 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p3 is me

16:14:27 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

16:14:31 <tlebo> ... goal of this meeting: identify what we want and need to do, decide what not to do.

... goal of this meeting: identify what we want and need to do, decide what not to do.

16:15:09 <tlebo> ... it is up to the WG to decide how much more time to ask for.

... it is up to the WG to decide how much more time to ask for.

16:15:26 <tlebo> ... our timetable from F2F2 shoots for Jan.

... our timetable from F2F2 shoots for Jan.

16:15:27 <pgroth> Revised timetable: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0

Paul Groth: Revised timetable: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0

16:15:40 <tlebo> ... may want to add a month or two for safety.

... may want to add a month or two for safety.

16:16:02 <tlebo> ... goal of meeting is to finalize LC.

... goal of meeting is to finalize LC.

16:16:41 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

16:16:44 <tlebo> ... second goal: produce realistic timetable for remaining documents (Notes)

... second goal: produce realistic timetable for remaining documents (Notes)

16:17:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:17:27 <tlebo> ... we need to define what defines interoperability, aka "exit criteria".

... we need to define what defines interoperability, aka "exit criteria".

16:18:02 <tlebo> ... need to prepare for Call for Implementations. Need to manage it.

... need to prepare for Call for Implementations. Need to manage it.

16:18:17 <tlebo> ... who is going to take lead, what will be done?

... who is going to take lead, what will be done?

16:18:54 <tlebo> 4 goals: finalize LC, timetable for WG (extension), define CR exit criteria draft, Call for Implementation.

4 goals: finalize LC, timetable for WG (extension), define CR exit criteria draft, Call for Implementation.

16:19:04 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:19:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:19:51 <tlebo> topic: PROV-DM

2. PROV-DM

Summary: The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features

<pgroth> Summary: The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features
16:20:00 <tlebo> paul: technical features.

Paul Groth: technical features.

16:20:07 <tlebo> ... all "technical features" are done in LC.

... all "technical features" are done in LC.

16:20:23 <tlebo> ... we are promising that all technical features are done.

... we are promising that all technical features are done.

16:20:51 <pgroth> collection contextualization primary source tracedTo (constraints are not final, should include specialization?) data types prov-o prov-dm incompability, e.g. prov\:location

Paul Groth: collection contextualization primary source tracedTo (constraints are not final, should include specialization?) data types prov-o prov-dm incompability, e.g. prov\:location

16:20:52 <tlebo> ... Paul and Luc looked through all reviews and listed the outstanding technical features.

... Paul and Luc looked through all reviews and listed the outstanding technical features.

16:21:06 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule

16:21:38 <tlebo> ... the above link shows the outstanding technical features that we need to settle.

... the above link shows the outstanding technical features that we need to settle.

16:21:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:21:42 <tlebo> ... any others?

... any others?

16:22:00 <tlebo> gk: prov-aq included?

Graham Klyne: prov-aq included?

16:22:03 <tlebo> paul: no

Paul Groth: no

16:22:14 <tlebo> ... we'll talk about this afternoon.

... we'll talk about this afternoon.

16:22:18 <tlebo> ^ tomorrow

^ tomorrow

16:22:18 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:22:24 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:22:30 <GK1> Hmmm... I won't be around tomorrow

Graham Klyne: Hmmm... I won't be around tomorrow

16:22:43 <GK1> But maybe that's OK.

Graham Klyne: But maybe that's OK.

16:23:09 <tlebo> jcheney: prov-constraints, what is the scope and intent of it?

James Cheney: prov-constraints, what is the scope and intent of it?

16:23:24 <tlebo> ... it is behind the others, we need to be aware of it.

... it is behind the others, we need to be aware of it.

16:24:15 <tlebo> Paul: lets walk through each technical features.

Paul Groth: lets walk through each technical features.

16:24:22 <tlebo> ... we have "options" on each feature.

... we have "options" on each feature.

16:24:29 <tlebo> ... 1 - rapid change and leave it in

... 1 - rapid change and leave it in

16:24:39 <tlebo> ... 2 - if consensus, leave in.

... 2 - if consensus, leave in.

16:24:50 <tlebo> ... 3 - can mark any feature as feature at risk.

... 3 - can mark any feature as feature at risk.

16:25:14 <tlebo> ... this is something we want to have, but it can be removed.

... this is something we want to have, but it can be removed.

16:25:26 <tlebo> ... 4 - remove a feature completely.

... 4 - remove a feature completely.

16:25:38 <tlebo> subtopic: Collections

2.1. Collections

Summary: The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.

16:25:50 <tlebo> subtopic dm - collections

subtopic dm - collections

<pgroth> Summary: The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.
16:26:33 <tlebo> pgroth: summary. there has been debate and we seem to have converged.

Paul Groth: summary. there has been debate and we seem to have converged.

16:26:40 <tlebo> ... Collection and hadMember.

... Collection and hadMember.

16:26:49 <tlebo> ... "pop-up"s about collections.

... "pop-up"s about collections.

16:27:05 <tlebo> ... e.g. okay to "strings" as keys in Dictionaries?

... e.g. okay to "strings" as keys in Dictionaries?

16:27:17 <tlebo> ... are Dictionaries stable enough for Rec?

... are Dictionaries stable enough for Rec?

16:27:28 <tlebo> ... or are they changing and will the continue to change?

... or are they changing and will the continue to change?

16:27:39 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:27:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:27:59 <tlebo> luc: we can split the discussions.

Luc Moreau: we can split the discussions.

16:28:00 <tlebo> q+

q+

16:28:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

16:28:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:28:55 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:29:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

16:29:09 <tlebo> tlebo: my impression is that from the last weeks effort had settled it.

Timothy Lebo: my impression is that from the last weeks effort had settled it.

16:29:24 <tlebo> paolo: comfortable that we've settled it.

Paolo Missier: comfortable that we've settled it.

16:29:36 <tlebo> ... pop ups: Brian's concern. An official concern?

... pop ups: Brian's concern. An official concern?

16:29:40 <tlebo> q-

q-

16:30:00 <tlebo> ... "it's not clear" why they are there. "why aren't generic enough"

... "it's not clear" why they are there. "why aren't generic enough"

16:30:12 <tlebo> ... less worried about the technical definition.

... less worried about the technical definition.

16:30:31 <tlebo> ... the questions on the "strings" key issue.

... the questions on the "strings" key issue.

16:30:39 <tlebo> ... "all of prov has to be semantic"

... "all of prov has to be semantic"

16:30:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:30:55 <tlebo> ... in an RDF encoding doens't imply "semantics"

... in an RDF encoding doens't imply "semantics"

16:31:01 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:31:23 <tlebo> stephanZ: we should stick to string keys. it's just a way to index a member.

Stephan Zednik: we should stick to string keys. it's just a way to index a member.

16:31:43 <tlebo> ... Bag of Hurt if we open keys to Resource.

... Bag of Hurt if we open keys to Resource.

16:31:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:32:03 <tlebo> ... considers prov-o Dictionary modeling settled. Stable and reasonable. Fine wiht Note and Rec.

... considers prov-o Dictionary modeling settled. Stable and reasonable. Fine wiht Note and Rec.

16:32:03 <TomDN> +1 jcheney

Tom De Nies: +1 jcheney

16:32:28 <tlebo> pgroth: it seems that the technical work is stable.

Paul Groth: it seems that the technical work is stable.

16:32:28 <TomDN> sorry, +1 zednik

Tom De Nies: sorry, +1 zednik

16:32:34 <GK1> (I don't understand that mention of "semantics"... by definition RDF has semantics, even if the semantics of a particular construct is vacuous.)

Graham Klyne: (I don't understand that mention of "semantics"... by definition RDF has semantics, even if the semantics of a particular construct is vacuous.)

16:32:39 <tlebo> ... the existential of "do they belong" seems to be the only question.

... the existential of "do they belong" seems to be the only question.

16:33:16 <pgroth> straw poll: leave collections as there as part of the prov-dm rec

Paul Groth: straw poll: leave collections as there as part of the prov-dm rec

16:33:20 <tlebo> +1

+1

16:33:24 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

16:33:26 <Curt> -1

Curt Tilmes: -1

16:33:26 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:33:31 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

16:33:32 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:33:33 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

16:33:35 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

16:33:35 <jun>   +1

Jun Zhao: +1

16:33:36 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

16:33:37 <GK1> -0 (I won't oppose consensus)

Graham Klyne: -0 (I won't oppose consensus)

16:33:42 <jcheney> 0 (haven't kept up)

James Cheney: 0 (haven't kept up)

16:33:49 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

16:34:03 <tlebo> curt: they are a layer above the fundamentals.

Curt Tilmes: they are a layer above the fundamentals.

16:34:21 <tlebo> ... it is a significantly complicated, many new concepts.

... it is a significantly complicated, many new concepts.

16:34:25 <tlebo> ... likes how it's modeled.

... likes how it's modeled.

16:34:30 <tlebo> ... fine as a note.

... fine as a note.

16:34:41 <tlebo> ... has no need for modeling prov of collections (personally).

... has no need for modeling prov of collections (personally).

16:34:49 <tlebo> ... it's extraneous.

... it's extraneous.

16:35:01 <tlebo> ... like them, keep them, but not in Rec.

... like them, keep them, but not in Rec.

16:35:07 <dgarijo> but collections are not part of the "core" right?

Daniel Garijo: but collections are not part of the "core" right?

16:35:10 <tlebo> paul: take dictionary?

Paul Groth: take dictionary?

16:35:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:35:27 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

16:35:28 <tlebo> curt: all of collections, since there is nothing in spec that depends on it.

Curt Tilmes: all of collections, since there is nothing in spec that depends on it.

16:35:30 <GK1> @dgarijo They're in the REC

Graham Klyne: @dgarijo They're in the REC

16:35:35 <GK1> (proposed)

Graham Klyne: (proposed)

16:35:41 <tlebo> ... the whole spec would be smaller.

... the whole spec would be smaller.

16:35:49 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:35:50 <dgarijo> @GK1 ok.

Daniel Garijo: @GK1 ok.

16:35:55 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:36:02 <tlebo> ... collections are not fundamental.

... collections are not fundamental.

16:36:15 <tlebo> ... loads of ways to model collections.

... loads of ways to model collections.

16:36:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:36:23 <tlebo> ... it is a specialized thing.

... it is a specialized thing.

16:36:42 <tlebo> ... like Workflows, not fundamental.

... like Workflows, not fundamental.

16:36:55 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:37:04 <tlebo> paul: personal opinion to have Collection and hasMember in rec

Paul Groth: personal opinion to have Collection and hasMember in rec

16:37:21 <tlebo> ... Simon's argument that things on web is collection. it's all over the web.

... Simon's argument that things on web is collection. it's all over the web.

16:37:40 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:37:42 <reza_bfar> q+

Reza B'Far: q+

16:37:43 <tlebo> ... Dictionaries can more easily be a big chunk for niches

... Dictionaries can more easily be a big chunk for niches

16:37:55 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:38:31 <GK1> I agree with Curt ... it's not fundamental to provenance, so not strictly needed.  There are other ways to model collections.  One could argue that many things on the web being collections is a reason *not* to include them in provenance specs, as we should use definitions that al;so work for non-provenance apps.

Graham Klyne: I agree with Curt ... it's not fundamental to provenance, so not strictly needed. There are other ways to model collections. One could argue that many things on the web being collections is a reason *not* to include them in provenance specs, as we should use definitions that al;so work for non-provenance apps.

16:38:52 <tlebo> jcheney:  how separable are they? they are.

James Cheney: how separable are they? they are.

16:39:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:39:05 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:39:08 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q?

16:39:11 <reza_bfar> q+

Reza B'Far: q+

16:39:37 <tlebo> ... derivedByInsertion etc.

... derivedByInsertion etc.

16:39:42 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar

Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar

16:39:57 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:39:57 <tlebo> reza: for interoperabily, we need SOMETHING for Collection.

Reza B'Far: for interoperabily, we need SOMETHING for Collection.

16:40:01 <jun> Mmmm, but the property hasMember has nothing to do with provenance. but I like to keep it because there are a lot of collections on the web, and we provide people a standard way to model the insertion, deletion etc key patterns, instead of letting everyone extend prov in their own way

Jun Zhao: Mmmm, but the property hasMember has nothing to do with provenance. but I like to keep it because there are a lot of collections on the web, and we provide people a standard way to model the insertion, deletion etc key patterns, instead of letting everyone extend prov in their own way

16:40:05 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:40:08 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

16:40:10 <tlebo> ... for Dictionary, agree with Paul (too complicated).

... for Dictionary, agree with Paul (too complicated).

16:40:24 <tlebo> paolo: promote interoperability

Paolo Missier: promote interoperability

16:40:35 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:40:45 <tlebo> ... GK's point is the exact reason to include Collection.

... GK's point is the exact reason to include Collection.

16:41:01 <tlebo> ... Dictionary is one type of collection, if not fundamental. Then make it a Note.

... Dictionary is one type of collection, if not fundamental. Then make it a Note.

16:41:06 <tlebo> ... what is a Note?

... what is a Note?

16:42:08 <tlebo> pgroth: a Note is a Recommendation from our group, it has a standing, but not the full force. Some patent stuff, too.

Paul Groth: a Note is a Recommendation from our group, it has a standing, but not the full force. Some patent stuff, too.

16:42:18 <tlebo> luc: no burden of proving interoperability.

Luc Moreau: no burden of proving interoperability.

16:42:29 <tlebo> ... on a Note.

... on a Note.

16:42:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:42:41 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

16:43:08 <tlebo> khalid: Curt said likely to treat as Collections, unlikely to go down. As long as it's in Rec OR Note, fine.

Khalid Belhajjame: Curt said likely to treat as Collections, unlikely to go down. As long as it's in Rec OR Note, fine.

16:43:23 <dgarijo> I would leave collecitons in the recommendation. It is not part of the fundamental provenance, ok, but collections are out of what we have called the core.

Daniel Garijo: I would leave collecitons in the recommendation. It is not part of the fundamental provenance, ok, but collections are out of what we have called the core.

16:43:26 <tlebo> ... a Note has Insertion and Removal, then Collection in DM doens't make sense.

... a Note has Insertion and Removal, then Collection in DM doens't make sense.

16:43:36 <tlebo> q+ to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.

q+ to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.

16:43:54 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

16:43:54 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.

16:43:57 <GK1> If we would pick an existing widely used collection spec and recommend that, I'd be more supportive.

Graham Klyne: If we would pick an existing widely used collection spec and recommend that, I'd be more supportive.

16:44:12 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:44:15 <tlebo> q-

q-

16:44:41 <tlebo> pgroth: leave collection and hadMember, move Dictionary to Note.

Paul Groth: leave collection and hadMember, move Dictionary to Note.

16:44:50 <reza_bfar> +1 for Paul's proposal.

Reza B'Far: +1 for Paul's proposal.

16:44:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:45:09 <jun> what about other stuff, like insertion, deletion? not included?

Jun Zhao: what about other stuff, like insertion, deletion? not included?

16:45:10 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:45:23 <Paolo> @jun no

Paolo Missier: @jun no

16:45:44 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:45:59 <Paolo> @jun really, really minimal. essentially a placeholder as Tim pointed out

Paolo Missier: @jun really, really minimal. essentially a placeholder as Tim pointed out

16:46:06 <tlebo> luc: if we take Dictionary out and keep just Collection and hadMember, do we still add their axioms?

Luc Moreau: if we take Dictionary out and keep just Collection and hadMember, do we still add their axioms?

16:46:17 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:46:32 <tlebo> ... seems that we'd be adding new realtion to model between entity and xxx

... seems that we'd be adding new realtion to model between entity and xxx

16:46:41 <jun> @Paolo, thanks

Jun Zhao: @Paolo, thanks

16:46:45 <tlebo> ... does it mean that prov-n doc is taken out regarding Insertion?

... does it mean that prov-n doc is taken out regarding Insertion?

16:46:53 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:47:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

16:47:26 <tlebo> luc: hadMember is not provenance

Luc Moreau: hadMember is not provenance

16:47:37 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:47:51 <reza_bfar> Does collection not imply life-cycle ownership?  So, something more specialized than hasMember?

Reza B'Far: Does collection not imply life-cycle ownership? So, something more specialized than hasMember?

16:47:54 <tlebo> paolo: specOf isn't provenance, either.

Paolo Missier: specOf isn't provenance, either.

16:48:04 <tlebo> luc; specOf is related to aspects of Entities.

luc; specOf is related to aspects of Entities.

16:48:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:48:21 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:48:28 <tlebo> pgroth: we aren't going to lose it.

Paul Groth: we aren't going to lose it.

16:48:35 <reza_bfar> In other words, doesn't the life-cycle of members of collection belong to collection?

Reza B'Far: In other words, doesn't the life-cycle of members of collection belong to collection?

16:48:51 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:48:51 <tlebo> jcheney: as jun says...

James Cheney: as jun says...

16:49:08 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:49:13 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:49:18 <tlebo> ... same can be said for membership, if it's not standard provenance, it's going to be part of it.

... same can be said for membership, if it's not standard provenance, it's going to be part of it.

16:49:20 <khalidBelhajjame> ack kh

Khalid Belhajjame: ack kh

16:49:21 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

16:49:29 <tlebo> paolo: what happens to prov-n?

Paolo Missier: what happens to prov-n?

16:49:31 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

16:49:31 <Luc> isn't there an ontology out there with a part of relation? why does it need to be in prov?

Luc Moreau: isn't there an ontology out there with a part of relation? why does it need to be in prov?

16:49:47 <Luc> isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?

Luc Moreau: isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?

16:49:49 <tlebo> ... take partOf out, is Note union of Rec?

... take partOf out, is Note union of Rec?

16:50:07 <tlebo> ... a bi odd that's not provennace.

... a bi odd that's not provennace.

16:50:36 <hook> q+

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: q+

16:50:39 <tlebo> ... the provenance of collections isn't in DM.

... the provenance of collections isn't in DM.

16:50:43 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:50:44 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

16:50:57 <Luc> q+ isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?

Luc Moreau: q+ isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?

16:51:28 <tlebo> hook: python and json, dictionaries and collections are fundamental and primative. Newer forms, they are intrinsic. But PROV isn't a programming language...

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: python and json, dictionaries and collections are fundamental and primative. Newer forms, they are intrinsic. But PROV isn't a programming language...

16:51:59 <tlebo> ... notional views as data structures as PROV or domain specific interpretations of structures.

... notional views as data structures as PROV or domain specific interpretations of structures.

16:52:06 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:52:11 <jun> @luc, at least dcterms has it, isPartOf, hasPart

Jun Zhao: @luc, at least dcterms has it, isPartOf, hasPart

16:52:26 <tlebo> luc: if there are part_of relations otu there, then why make our own?

Luc Moreau: if there are part_of relations otu there, then why make our own?

16:52:49 <tlebo> ... fine to make it i the Note, but on DM with only Collection, why "part-of"?

... fine to make it i the Note, but on DM with only Collection, why "part-of"?

16:52:53 <tlebo> q+

q+

16:52:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:52:59 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

16:53:15 <tlebo> q-

q-

16:53:23 <reza_bfar> The issue I see with moving everything into the Note is that implementers start minimally and moving everything to the note is as good as moving everything out.

Reza B'Far: The issue I see with moving everything into the Note is that implementers start minimally and moving everything to the note is as good as moving everything out.

16:53:27 <tlebo> luc: proposal would be have EVERYTHIGN be a note.

Luc Moreau: proposal would be have EVERYTHIGN be a note.

16:53:29 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:53:38 <pgroth> ack paolo

Paul Groth: ack paolo

16:53:56 <tlebo> paolo: taht would make the most sense, as breaking things up it's hard to fit into buckets. left with too much semantics in one.

Paolo Missier: taht would make the most sense, as breaking things up it's hard to fit into buckets. left with too much semantics in one.

16:54:13 <dgarijo> Does this mean that we separate it from prov-o too?

Daniel Garijo: Does this mean that we separate it from prov-o too?

16:54:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:54:52 <zednik> @dgarijo I think so, create prov-collections

Stephan Zednik: @dgarijo I think so, create prov-collections

16:55:23 <tlebo> paul: first straw pole -1 and a 0

Paul Groth: first straw pole -1 and a 0

16:55:29 <GK1> I think the comparison with Python is misleading.  With RDF you can mix languages as required. With programming languages you can't.

Graham Klyne: I think the comparison with Python is misleading. With RDF you can mix languages as required. With programming languages you can't.

16:55:33 <tlebo> ... next straw pole: move entirely to a Note.

... next straw pole: move entirely to a Note.

16:55:48 <pgroth> straw poll: move collections completely into a note

Paul Groth: straw poll: move collections completely into a note

16:55:53 <reza_bfar> -1

Reza B'Far: -1

16:55:54 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

16:55:55 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:55:55 <dgarijo> +0

Daniel Garijo: +0

16:55:59 <tlebo> +1

+1

16:56:01 <reza_bfar> 0

Reza B'Far: 0

16:56:05 <GK1> (My -0 meant that I'd prefer to drop, but won't argue against consensus)

Graham Klyne: (My -0 meant that I'd prefer to drop, but won't argue against consensus)

16:56:11 <YolandaGil> -1

Yolanda Gil: -1

16:56:14 <reza_bfar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

16:56:15 <zednik> +1 (happy with results of either straw poll, argument was convincing to use note)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (happy with results of either straw poll, argument was convincing to use note)

16:56:17 <jcheney> +1 (we can always go back later if there is strong pull for this)

James Cheney: +1 (we can always go back later if there is strong pull for this)

16:56:22 <YolandaGil> q+

Yolanda Gil: q+

16:56:23 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar

Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar

16:56:24 <GK1> +0

Graham Klyne: +0

16:56:26 <jun> +0 I don't mind either way. but what will happen to prov-o?

Jun Zhao: +0 I don't mind either way. but what will happen to prov-o?

16:56:35 <tlebo> reza: daytime implementers can be devious. Will use different mechansism if it's not in the standard.

Reza B'Far: daytime implementers can be devious. Will use different mechansism if it's not in the standard.

16:56:52 <tlebo> ... "deviating the product" will be done by different companies.

... "deviating the product" will be done by different companies.

16:56:55 <GK1> Overspecification kills standards too --- look at OSI.

Graham Klyne: Overspecification kills standards too --- look at OSI.

16:57:01 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil

Paul Groth: ack YolandaGil

16:57:02 <dgarijo> @Jun, That is my concern too. Will we have to separate it? Create another ontology?

Daniel Garijo: @Jun, That is my concern too. Will we have to separate it? Create another ontology?

16:57:08 <tlebo> yolanda: for Plan, we have nominal concept of Plan.

Yolanda Gil: for Plan, we have nominal concept of Plan.

16:57:20 <tlebo> ... nothing fleshes them in.

... nothing fleshes them in.

16:57:22 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:57:31 <Curt> prov\:type Collection

Curt Tilmes: prov\:type Collection

16:57:41 <tlebo> ... as a compromise, have Collection without hadMember (just like we have Plan).

... as a compromise, have Collection without hadMember (just like we have Plan).

16:57:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:57:45 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

16:57:46 <Paolo> @yolanda so we just leave prov:type = "collection"?

Paolo Missier: @yolanda so we just leave prov:type = "collection"?

16:57:47 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:58:04 <tlebo> luc: to reza: not suggesting we drop Coll/Dict entirely. Moved to Note.

Luc Moreau: to reza: not suggesting we drop Coll/Dict entirely. Moved to Note.

16:58:07 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:58:09 <satya> -1 (Note is a very vague notion and I don't understand how the features of collection can be modeled in Notes - specifically from perspective of PROV-O like Jun and Dani)

Satya Sahoo: -1 (Note is a very vague notion and I don't understand how the features of collection can be modeled in Notes - specifically from perspective of PROV-O like Jun and Dani)

16:58:12 <tlebo> ... cut and paste job.

... cut and paste job.

16:58:27 <pgroth> @satya - we are talking about a w3c note document

Paul Groth: @satya - we are talking about a w3c note document

16:58:54 <satya> ahh - ok, (still -1, collection is needed in Rec from my perspective)

Satya Sahoo: ahh - ok, (still -1, collection is needed in Rec from my perspective)

16:59:01 <tlebo> ... to Yolanda: we have Plans, yes. but we have hadPlan on QualifiedAssociation. So links TO it.

... to Yolanda: we have Plans, yes. but we have hadPlan on QualifiedAssociation. So links TO it.

16:59:11 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q?

16:59:11 <tlebo> ... Collection doesn't have an In or Out.

... Collection doesn't have an In or Out.

16:59:16 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

16:59:20 <tlebo> q+ to say the relation is subClassOf

q+ to say the relation is subClassOf

16:59:28 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

16:59:46 <tlebo> yolanda: I'd chose Collection over Plan

Yolanda Gil: I'd chose Collection over Plan

17:00:22 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

17:00:30 <tlebo> paolo: agree, notion of placeholder to leave open to elaboration.

Paolo Missier: agree, notion of placeholder to leave open to elaboration.

17:00:48 <tlebo> ... reza's point that standards hold develoeprs hands for what they can do.

... reza's point that standards hold develoeprs hands for what they can do.

17:01:01 <GK1> We should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word.  It's easier to add stuff later than to take out mistakes.

Graham Klyne: We should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word. It's easier to add stuff later than to take out mistakes.

17:01:11 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

17:01:19 <tlebo> ... Note is not enough.

... Note is not enough.

17:01:29 <tlebo> q-

q-

17:01:31 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

17:01:47 <jcheney> @reza: Given that we can't standardize all kinds of collections in advance, developers will still be differentiating anyway.

James Cheney: @reza: Given that we can't standardize all kinds of collections in advance, developers will still be differentiating anyway.

17:01:51 <GK1> Also, I don't think it's about how binding a document may be, but how confident we are that it will garner consensus from a wider community.

Graham Klyne: Also, I don't think it's about how binding a document may be, but how confident we are that it will garner consensus from a wider community.

17:02:14 <reza_bfar> FWIW - I think Yolanda's proposal is the way to go.  It avoids a situation where, for example, people will use something like a linked list of entities.

Reza B'Far: FWIW - I think Yolanda's proposal is the way to go. It avoids a situation where, for example, people will use something like a linked list of entities.

17:02:23 <GK1> A NOTE suggests we aren't so sure ... NOTEs may get picked up and standardized later if they make sense.

Graham Klyne: A NOTE suggests we aren't so sure ... NOTEs may get picked up and standardized later if they make sense.

17:03:10 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:03:26 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

17:03:35 <tlebo> zednik: adding a Note provides a claim to the developer to differentiate.

Stephan Zednik: adding a Note provides a claim to the developer to differentiate.

17:03:49 <tlebo> ... "we support the Rec and the Note" - the Note becomes the feature.

... "we support the Rec and the Note" - the Note becomes the feature.

17:03:58 <tlebo> ... they can brag about the Note.

... they can brag about the Note.

17:04:25 <tlebo> ... Note gives direction that they can move towards.

... Note gives direction that they can move towards.

17:04:51 <tlebo> ... Collection with no properties. Def says "has entities".

... Collection with no properties. Def says "has entities".

17:05:34 <tlebo> ... Plans as stub, something that refers to the stub. We don't gain without hadMember.

... Plans as stub, something that refers to the stub. We don't gain without hadMember.

17:06:03 <GK1> I think if something is well documented and makes sense, developers will use it.  Standard or no.  I think there's too much hand-wringing about status.  But if a spec is monolithic that would tend to weigh against it.  IMO.

Graham Klyne: I think if something is well documented and makes sense, developers will use it. Standard or no. I think there's too much hand-wringing about status. But if a spec is monolithic that would tend to weigh against it. IMO.

17:06:07 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

17:06:14 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

17:06:22 <hook> q+

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: q+

17:06:24 <tlebo> tomdn: if we put into rec, all we're saying is taht there is a collection and it has members.

Tom De Nies: if we put into rec, all we're saying is taht there is a collection and it has members.

17:06:29 <tlebo> ... for keeping Collection in rec.

... for keeping Collection in rec.

17:06:52 <tlebo> ... it isn't technically provenance, but it IS! If you want to talk about where something comes from, it is a part of a bigger whole.

... it isn't technically provenance, but it IS! If you want to talk about where something comes from, it is a part of a bigger whole.

17:07:21 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

17:07:25 <tlebo> ... keep Collection and hadMember.

... keep Collection and hadMember.

17:07:27 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q?

17:07:34 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

17:07:40 <tlebo> hook: extremes of interoperability.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: extremes of interoperability.

17:08:03 <tlebo> ... having defined Collections and Plans without ties to them, breaks down interoperability.

... having defined Collections and Plans without ties to them, breaks down interoperability.

17:08:12 <tlebo> ... systems will vary and defeats the purpose.

... systems will vary and defeats the purpose.

17:08:16 <pgroth> @gk for paq - i think we don't have a ton to talk about - just raising issues that we will have to address

Paul Groth: @gk for paq - i think we don't have a ton to talk about - just raising issues that we will have to address

17:08:31 <pgroth> @gk does that make sense?

Paul Groth: @gk does that make sense?

17:08:33 <tlebo> ... e.g. OPM, Annotations, key-value pairs.

... e.g. OPM, Annotations, key-value pairs.

17:08:47 <GK1> @pgroth mainly, yes.  But I'm thinking we should drop hasAnchor.

Graham Klyne: @pgroth mainly, yes. But I'm thinking we should drop hasAnchor.

17:08:52 <tlebo> ... 2nd point: Collections and Plans. Should be some constraining factors.

... 2nd point: Collections and Plans. Should be some constraining factors.

17:08:58 <tlebo> ... "Creatively used".

... "Creatively used".

17:09:15 <tlebo> ... constraining and giving pattern.

... constraining and giving pattern.

17:09:24 <GK1> @pgroth ... because the main usecases are covered by specializationOf

Graham Klyne: @pgroth ... because the main usecases are covered by specializationOf

17:09:36 <Paolo> @GK agree -- if you propose something that makes sense, that's the best way to win the argument regardless of status

Paolo Missier: @GK agree -- if you propose something that makes sense, that's the best way to win the argument regardless of status

17:09:43 <tlebo> luc: editors hat: constriants doc: no Collec/Dict. No constraints in dm-constraints (good!)

Luc Moreau: editors hat: constriants doc: no Collec/Dict. No constraints in dm-constraints (good!)

17:09:52 <tlebo> ... not clear we'll converge quickly

... not clear we'll converge quickly

17:10:08 <tlebo> ... timeline!

... timeline!

17:10:16 <pgroth> @gk hmm maybe we can start that up on the mailing list and address it at  call

Paul Groth: @gk hmm maybe we can start that up on the mailing list and address it at call

17:10:20 <tlebo> ... taking out of rec makes things faster.

... taking out of rec makes things faster.

17:10:29 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q?

17:10:42 <GK1> @pgroth ack - I already responded to your issue

Graham Klyne: @pgroth ack - I already responded to your issue

17:10:50 <tlebo> paul: less objection to keeping it in Rec

Paul Groth: less objection to keeping it in Rec

17:11:25 <tlebo> ... withotu hadMember relation, "it doenst make sense"

... withotu hadMember relation, "it doenst make sense"

17:11:25 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

17:11:30 <tlebo> .. what to do?

.. what to do?

17:11:30 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

17:11:32 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

17:11:40 <Paolo> q+ to make a proposal

Paolo Missier: q+ to make a proposal

17:11:41 <khalidBelhajjame> +q (can we clarify what a W3C note mean?)

Khalid Belhajjame: +q (can we clarify what a W3C note mean?)

17:12:08 <YolandaGil> @Luc: how do you deal with Plan in the constraints spec?

Yolanda Gil: @Luc: how do you deal with Plan in the constraints spec?

17:12:15 <tlebo> paolo: a collection with hadMember in Rec, everything else goes to a Note.

Paolo Missier: a collection with hadMember in Rec, everything else goes to a Note.

17:12:28 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

17:12:31 <tlebo> ... no constraints in dm-constraints

... no constraints in dm-constraints

17:12:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:12:53 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

17:12:53 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to make a proposal

Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to make a proposal

17:13:08 <GK1> My compromise might be: drop all collection-related classes; keep those collection properties that are subproperties of derivedFrom, etc., (as properties involving entities).

Graham Klyne: My compromise might be: drop all collection-related classes; keep those collection properties that are subproperties of derivedFrom, etc., (as properties involving entities).

17:13:13 <tlebo> jcheney: does not seem to be controversy

James Cheney: does not seem to be controversy

17:13:54 <tlebo> luc: we can move mountains.

Luc Moreau: we can move mountains.

17:14:11 <tlebo> ... they restructured dm-constraints and prov-n

... they restructured dm-constraints and prov-n

17:14:17 <tlebo> ... but they may be unhappy

... but they may be unhappy

17:14:37 <tlebo> jcheney: we don't want it, either.

James Cheney: we don't want it, either.

17:14:45 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

17:14:49 <tlebo> curt: mention the note in the Rec?

Curt Tilmes: mention the note in the Rec?

17:14:52 <jcheney> (does not seem to be controversy about memberOf and Collection cosntraints)

James Cheney: (does not seem to be controversy about memberOf and Collection cosntraints)

17:15:02 <tlebo> ... increase the stature for an implementer.

... increase the stature for an implementer.

17:15:05 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:15:07 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

17:15:26 <tlebo> paolo: if you do it right, people will follow it.

Paolo Missier: if you do it right, people will follow it.

17:15:48 <reza_bfar> I'm good with either Yolanda's proposal or Paolo's proposal.

Reza B'Far: I'm good with either Yolanda's proposal or Paolo's proposal.

17:16:02 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

17:16:12 <tlebo> paul: straw poll #3

Paul Groth: straw poll #3

17:16:21 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

17:16:26 <tlebo> khalid: what is a Note?

Khalid Belhajjame: what is a Note?

17:16:55 <tlebo> ... "you can ignore the notes" when implementing a Rec.

... "you can ignore the notes" when implementing a Rec.

17:17:14 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

17:17:14 <reza_bfar> I think the key question is this:  "Can an implementer claim compliance while violating a note?"

Reza B'Far: I think the key question is this: "Can an implementer claim compliance while violating a note?"

17:17:20 <tlebo> ... they can claim compliance without doing the Note.

... they can claim compliance without doing the Note.

17:17:43 <tlebo> (but as Stephan points out, the Note becomes a bragging point for those that do)

(but as Stephan points out, the Note becomes a bragging point for those that do)

17:18:09 <tlebo> paul: Notes are less forceful.

Paul Groth: Notes are less forceful.

17:18:18 <GK1> If implemented an application that generated provenance with collections that are, say, rdf:List values, would I be in violation of a provenance REC that specified collections.  I think not.

Graham Klyne: If implemented an application that generated provenance with collections that are, say, rdf:List values, would I be in violation of a provenance REC that specified collections. I think not.

17:19:00 <tlebo> jcheney: one can come up with other collections, but the question is do we require them to implemetn it? (not in a Note)

James Cheney: one can come up with other collections, but the question is do we require them to implemetn it? (not in a Note)

17:19:30 <Luc> proposal 1: keep collection and dictionary in recommendations

Luc Moreau: proposal 1: keep collection and dictionary in recommendations

17:19:43 <Luc> proposal 2: keep collection class in recommendations, move collection membership and dictionary to note

Luc Moreau: proposal 2: keep collection class in recommendations, move collection membership and dictionary to note

17:20:04 <Luc> proposal 3: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

Luc Moreau: proposal 3: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

17:20:14 <Luc> proposal 4: move collection and dictionary to note

Luc Moreau: proposal 4: move collection and dictionary to note

17:20:38 <pgroth> proposal 1

Paul Groth: proposal 1

17:20:42 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

17:20:47 <Dong> proposal 3

Trung Huynh: proposal 3

17:20:48 <GK1> -0

Graham Klyne: -0

17:21:10 <GK1> vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0  (that would be a vote for 4)

Graham Klyne: vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4)

17:21:12 <tlebo> PICK A NUMBER

PICK A NUMBER

17:21:23 <TomDN> +proposal 3

Tom De Nies: +proposal 3

17:21:33 <jcheney> +proposal 3

James Cheney: +proposal 3

17:21:40 <zednik> 3

Stephan Zednik: 3

17:21:40 <pgroth> pick a proposal

Paul Groth: pick a proposal

17:21:44 <khalidBelhajjame> 1

Khalid Belhajjame: 1

17:21:44 <jcheney> +proposal 3

James Cheney: +proposal 3

17:21:44 <YolandaGil> 2

Yolanda Gil: 2

17:21:45 <TomDN> +proposal 3

Tom De Nies: +proposal 3

17:21:46 <GK1> vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0  (that would be a vote for 4)

Graham Klyne: vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4)

17:21:46 <Paolo> 3

Paolo Missier: 3

17:21:48 <satya> 2

Satya Sahoo: 2

17:21:48 <zednik> 3

Stephan Zednik: 3

17:21:49 <tlebo> 3

3

17:21:50 <dcorsar_> 3

David Corsar: 3

17:21:51 <Curt> 4

Curt Tilmes: 4

17:21:57 <jun> 4

Jun Zhao: 4

17:21:59 <reza_bfar> 3

Reza B'Far: 3

17:22:39 <GK1> just take the last number then :)

Graham Klyne: just take the last number then :)

17:22:48 <Dong> 3

Trung Huynh: 3

17:24:06 <pgroth> proposed: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

PROPOSED: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

17:24:10 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

17:24:11 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

17:24:12 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

17:24:13 <GK1> -0

Graham Klyne: -0

17:24:13 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1

17:24:15 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

17:24:15 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

17:24:15 <tlebo> +1

+1

17:24:15 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

17:24:17 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

17:24:20 <khalidBelhajjame> +0.5

Khalid Belhajjame: +0.5

17:24:48 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

17:24:52 <jun> +0

Jun Zhao: +0

17:25:04 <dgarijo> +0

Daniel Garijo: +0

17:25:05 <jun> [hard decision ...]

Jun Zhao: [hard decision ...]

17:25:16 <pgroth> accepted: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

RESOLVED: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note

17:25:27 <Paolo> @jun I have made harder decisions in my life :-)

Paolo Missier: @jun I have made harder decisions in my life :-)

17:26:23 <jun> @Paolo, let's wait for contextualization :)

Jun Zhao: @Paolo, let's wait for contextualization :)

17:27:21 <tlebo> topic contextualization

topic contextualization

17:27:34 <tlebo> subtopic: Contextualization

2.2. Contextualization

Summary: The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".

<pgroth> Summary: The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".
17:27:47 <pgroth> straw poll: do we keep contextualization in the rec?

Paul Groth: straw poll: do we keep contextualization in the rec?

17:27:47 <GK1> are we voting yet?

Graham Klyne: are we voting yet?

17:27:47 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

17:27:50 <GK1> -1

Graham Klyne: -1

17:27:53 <tlebo> +1

+1

17:27:57 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

17:27:57 <Paolo> 0

Paolo Missier: 0

17:28:02 <Curt> 0

Curt Tilmes: 0

17:28:02 <khalidBelhajjame> -0.5

Khalid Belhajjame: -0.5

17:28:03 <reza_bfar> 0

Reza B'Far: 0

17:28:03 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

17:28:04 <zednik> 0

Stephan Zednik: 0

17:28:06 <dgarijo> -0

Daniel Garijo: -0

17:28:06 <satya> -1

Satya Sahoo: -1

17:28:11 <dcorsar_> 0

David Corsar: 0

17:28:21 <YolandaGil> 0

Yolanda Gil: 0

17:28:37 <GK1> My latest position: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0355.html

Graham Klyne: My latest position: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0355.html

17:29:35 <jun> [I'll dial back then]

Jun Zhao: [I'll dial back then]

17:29:45 <pgroth> 20 minutes and we'll be back

Paul Groth: 20 minutes and we'll be back

17:29:50 <dgarijo> ok

Daniel Garijo: ok

17:29:59 <jun> @tlebo, thanks for the excellent scribing!

Jun Zhao: @tlebo, thanks for the excellent scribing!

17:30:03 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun

17:32:20 <dgarijo> maybe I'll have to go by then. As I said in my review of the DM, I think that contextualization is trying to do something similar what the accounts were trying to do with the ids within each account. We voted to leave them out of the dm because it complicated the model.

Daniel Garijo: maybe I'll have to go by then. As I said in my review of the DM, I think that contextualization is trying to do something similar what the accounts were trying to do with the ids within each account. We voted to leave them out of the dm because it complicated the model.

17:35:00 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

17:49:22 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aaaa

(No events recorded for 14 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aaaa

17:54:48 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aabb

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aabb

17:55:39 <dgarijo> I have to go. Hopefully I'll be able to join more time tomorrw. Good bye!

Daniel Garijo: I have to go. Hopefully I'll be able to join more time tomorrw. Good bye!

17:55:49 <pgroth> thanks dgarijo

Paul Groth: thanks dgarijo

17:55:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

17:56:50 <Paolo> scribe: paolo

(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)

17:57:46 <satya> +1 Dani - I just dug out the previous version of DM to state that contextualization is trying to bring in Account through the back door

Satya Sahoo: +1 Dani - I just dug out the previous version of DM to state that contextualization is trying to bring in Account through the back door

17:58:02 <satya> sorry, I have to leave for another meeting, will be back in an hour

Satya Sahoo: sorry, I have to leave for another meeting, will be back in an hour

17:58:42 <jun>   have we resumed?

Jun Zhao: have we resumed?

17:58:57 <Luc> about to resume

Luc Moreau: about to resume

17:59:04 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

17:59:13 <jun> zakim, ??P1 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P1 is me

17:59:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

17:59:16 <pgroth> resuming

Paul Groth: resuming

17:59:54 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

18:00:12 <GK1> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

18:00:47 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: not opposed to keeping contextualization, but do we need to keep it as it is?

Khalid Belhajjame: not opposed to keeping contextualization, but do we need to keep it as it is?

18:01:08 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: def of contextualization too complicated for no good reason

Khalid Belhajjame: def of contextualization too complicated for no good reason

18:01:29 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

18:01:54 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: it simply adds bundle to specialization, however bundle appears to be a defined context, which is not really part of the def. of bundle in the current DM

Khalid Belhajjame: it simply adds bundle to specialization, however bundle appears to be a defined context, which is not really part of the def. of bundle in the current DM

18:02:10 <TomDN> I was going to propose something like: "An entity that is a contextualization, is a specialization of an entity in another bundle"

Tom De Nies: I was going to propose something like: "An entity that is a contextualization, is a specialization of an entity in another bundle"

18:02:28 <TomDN> (to simplify the phrasing)

Tom De Nies: (to simplify the phrasing)

18:02:53 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: bundle def was careflly phrased not to bring back "account", however in contextualization the bundle seems to define context, which is too strong a semantics

Khalid Belhajjame: bundle def was careflly phrased not to bring back "account", however in contextualization the bundle seems to define context, which is too strong a semantics

18:03:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:03:07 <pgroth> ack Gk

Paul Groth: ack Gk

18:03:20 <GK1> Why I oppose leaving contextualization in the PROV specifications.

Graham Klyne: Why I oppose leaving contextualization in the PROV specifications.

18:03:20 <GK1> First, I want to be clear that I don't oppose this because I don't think it is useful.

Graham Klyne: First, I want to be clear that I don't oppose this because I don't think it is useful.

18:03:20 <GK1> Indeed, it's somewhat the opposite:  I think it's too important to risk getting wrong,

Graham Klyne: Indeed, it's somewhat the opposite: I think it's too important to risk getting wrong,

18:03:20 <GK1> and I really don't think we're clear enough about what we're trying to achieve here

Graham Klyne: and I really don't think we're clear enough about what we're trying to achieve here

18:03:20 <GK1> to be sure that we aren't getting it wrong.

Graham Klyne: to be sure that we aren't getting it wrong.

18:03:21 <Paolo> GK1: see IRC

Graham Klyne: see IRC

18:03:24 <GK1> As far as I can tell, contextualization as currently described has NO semantics that

Graham Klyne: As far as I can tell, contextualization as currently described has NO semantics that

18:03:27 <GK1> distinguish it from specializationOf, yet I believe it encourages users to read into it

Graham Klyne: distinguish it from specializationOf, yet I believe it encourages users to read into it

18:03:28 <Paolo> GK1: just above...

Graham Klyne: just above...

18:03:28 <GK1> uses that could violate the semantics of RDF URI usage (by creating an illusion of

Graham Klyne: uses that could violate the semantics of RDF URI usage (by creating an illusion of

18:03:30 <GK1> URIs that denote different things in different contexts).

Graham Klyne: URIs that denote different things in different contexts).

18:03:34 <GK1> In the absence of such semantics (i.e. without usable inferences), I can't see any valid

Graham Klyne: In the absence of such semantics (i.e. without usable inferences), I can't see any valid

18:03:36 <GK1> reason for  including contextualizationOf.  I believe this is an area in which we really

Graham Klyne: reason for including contextualizationOf. I believe this is an area in which we really

18:03:38 <GK1> *need* formalization and rigour, because it relates so closely to RDF semantics.

Graham Klyne: *need* formalization and rigour, because it relates so closely to RDF semantics.

18:03:42 <GK1> If we caused lots of developers to produce data that turns out to be inconsistent with

Graham Klyne: If we caused lots of developers to produce data that turns out to be inconsistent with

18:03:44 <GK1> RDF semantics, that would be real harm done, far far worse than the kind of failure of

Graham Klyne: RDF semantics, that would be real harm done, far far worse than the kind of failure of

18:03:46 <tlebo> @khalid, I agree that bundles do not define themselves as contexts, and they shouldn't.

Timothy Lebo: @khalid, I agree that bundles do not define themselves as contexts, and they shouldn't.

18:03:46 <GK1> interoperability just discussed in the context of collections.  In this case, if we got it

Graham Klyne: interoperability just discussed in the context of collections. In this case, if we got it

18:03:48 <GK1> wrong, it would much harder to just ignore any stuff that turns out not to work the way

Graham Klyne: wrong, it would much harder to just ignore any stuff that turns out not to work the way

18:03:49 <Paolo> GK1: this concept too important to get wrong

Graham Klyne: this concept too important to get wrong

18:03:51 <GK1>  it was intended, because there could be lots of broken data out there.

Graham Klyne: it was intended, because there could be lots of broken data out there.

18:03:52 <GK1>

Graham Klyne:

18:03:54 <GK1> If provenance is wildly successful, I suggest that broken contextualization could result

Graham Klyne: If provenance is wildly successful, I suggest that broken contextualization could result

18:03:56 <GK1> in Balkanization of the semantic web to rival the Browser wars over HTML that

Graham Klyne: in Balkanization of the semantic web to rival the Browser wars over HTML that

18:03:58 <GK1> we saw in the late 90s.

Graham Klyne: we saw in the late 90s.

18:04:03 <GK1> And we should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word.

Graham Klyne: And we should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word.

18:04:04 <GK1> When the whole issue of RDF contextualization is better defined (i.e. we have

Graham Klyne: When the whole issue of RDF contextualization is better defined (i.e. we have

18:04:06 <GK1> formal semantics for RDF datasets) then it should be possible to define

Graham Klyne: formal semantics for RDF datasets) then it should be possible to define

18:04:08 <GK1> provenance contextualization that we can be confident won't be used

Graham Klyne: provenance contextualization that we can be confident won't be used

18:04:10 <GK1> inappropriately.

Graham Klyne: inappropriately.

18:04:14 <GK1> Part of the reason that I'm so wary of this particular relation is that I think

Graham Klyne: Part of the reason that I'm so wary of this particular relation is that I think

18:04:17 <GK1> it usurps a part of semantic web technology that is being defined by the RDF

Graham Klyne: it usurps a part of semantic web technology that is being defined by the RDF

18:04:18 <GK1> working group ("named graphs", datasets and associated semantics).  As such, I

Graham Klyne: working group ("named graphs", datasets and associated semantics). As such, I

18:04:20 <GK1> think the whole discussion about this should be conducted in the provenance+RDF

Graham Klyne: think the whole discussion about this should be conducted in the provenance+RDF

18:04:22 <GK1> coordination group.

Graham Klyne: coordination group.

18:04:26 <Paolo> GK1: no semantics to make it different from specialization

Graham Klyne: no semantics to make it different from specialization

18:04:39 <pgroth> @paolo

Paul Groth: @paolo

18:04:44 <pgroth> you don't have to scribe this

Paul Groth: you don't have to scribe this

18:04:48 <pgroth> he pasted it in

Paul Groth: he pasted it in

18:04:52 <Paolo> GK1: but there is a chance it will be misused -- (see argument above on IRC)

Graham Klyne: but there is a chance it will be misused -- (see argument above on IRC)

18:05:05 <Paolo> GK1: no valid reason to include this

Graham Klyne: no valid reason to include this

18:06:14 <Paolo> GK1: dire consequences if we get this wrong

Graham Klyne: dire consequences if we get this wrong

18:06:31 <pgroth> wow! i want to be that successful

Paul Groth: wow! i want to be that successful

18:07:29 <Paolo> GK1: this discussion should be don on much closer coordination with the RDF WG

Graham Klyne: this discussion should be don on much closer coordination with the RDF WG

18:07:42 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:08:31 <Paolo> pgroth: any comments from people who were in favour?

Paul Groth: any comments from people who were in favour?

18:09:33 <Paolo> Luc: def can possibly be simplified.  the app-specific interpretation in the current def follows a discussion with Satya

Luc Moreau: def can possibly be simplified. the app-specific interpretation in the current def follows a discussion with Satya

18:09:40 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

18:09:48 <Paolo> Luc: but that part can be removed

Luc Moreau: but that part can be removed

18:10:43 <Paolo> Luc: comments to GK1: absence of inferences for this relation is not a strong objection, there are other examples in the spec

Luc Moreau: comments to GK1: absence of inferences for this relation is not a strong objection, there are other examples in the spec

18:11:11 <Paolo> Luc: contextualization is a form of specialization with an extra fixed aspect, namely the bundle

Luc Moreau: contextualization is a form of specialization with an extra fixed aspect, namely the bundle

18:11:50 <GK1> Just wanted be clear I feel strongly about this!

Graham Klyne: Just wanted be clear I feel strongly about this!

18:11:53 <Paolo> Luc: surprised that it may lead to such drastic consequences as those GK1 envisioned

Luc Moreau: surprised that it may lead to such drastic consequences as those GK1 envisioned

18:12:37 <Paolo> Luc: "context" used in a broad sense, it may apply to other elements of the model

Luc Moreau: "context" used in a broad sense, it may apply to other elements of the model

18:12:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:13:03 <Paolo> GK1: can't be sure it's not a problem -- but if it is, it can do serious damage

Graham Klyne: can't be sure it's not a problem -- but if it is, it can do serious damage

18:13:15 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

18:13:30 <GK1> Can't hear

Graham Klyne: Can't hear

18:14:00 <pgroth> better?

Paul Groth: better?

18:14:02 <Paolo> jcheney: description of bundle makes it just a container, it doesn't say anything about context

James Cheney: description of bundle makes it just a container, it doesn't say anything about context

18:14:08 <GK1> yes, thanks

Graham Klyne: yes, thanks

18:14:51 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:14:57 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

18:15:08 <Paolo> jcheney: GK1 seems to need a formal discussion of the implications of this def -- is that needed as part of the formal semantics?

James Cheney: GK1 seems to need a formal discussion of the implications of this def -- is that needed as part of the formal semantics?

18:15:46 <Paolo> GK1: that would be better, however the point of the meeting is to decide what's in or out, and this would need more time

Graham Klyne: that would be better, however the point of the meeting is to decide what's in or out, and this would need more time

18:15:50 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

18:15:58 <Paolo> GK1: discussion with the RDF WG needed

Graham Klyne: discussion with the RDF WG needed

18:16:48 <pgroth> the return of bob!

Paul Groth: the return of bob!

18:16:50 <jcheney> please don't call it bob

James Cheney: please don't call it bob

18:17:30 <Paolo> tlebo: prov:contextualize is just another property to relate two entities -- all we do is create 2 triples to associate 3 distinct resources with distinct URIs

Timothy Lebo: prov:contextualize is just another property to relate two entities -- all we do is create 2 triples to associate 3 distinct resources with distinct URIs

18:17:36 <Paolo> tlebo: how does that break RDF semantics?

Timothy Lebo: how does that break RDF semantics?

18:18:10 <Paolo> tlebo: and nonen of those URI are in the rdf namespace -- these are all in our own namespaces

Timothy Lebo: and none of those URI are in the rdf namespace -- these are all in our own namespaces

18:18:17 <Paolo> s/nonen/none
18:18:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:18:40 <Paolo> tlebo: can't see how this violates any of the RDF semantics

Timothy Lebo: can't see how this violates any of the RDF semantics

18:18:52 <tlebo> it gets me over to another bundle.

Timothy Lebo: it gets me over to another bundle.

18:19:00 <Paolo> GK1: can't we get the same effect with specialization alone?

Graham Klyne: can't we get the same effect with specialization alone?

18:19:43 <Paolo> GK1: the structure is such that it may encourage people to use it in improper ways

Graham Klyne: the structure is such that it may encourage people to use it in improper ways

18:20:36 <Paolo> GK1: the danger is of different interpretations of the same URI

Graham Klyne: the danger is of different interpretations of the same URI

18:20:43 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:20:43 <Paolo> tlebo: the URIs are distinct...

Timothy Lebo: the URIs are distinct...

18:21:13 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#inContext

Timothy Lebo: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#inContext

18:21:16 <tlebo> ^^ different URIs.

Timothy Lebo: ^^ different URIs.

18:21:29 <Paolo> pgroth: the idea is to relate two distinct URIs but also that one of them occurs in a bundle -- it's specialization plus "this other URI occurs in a bundle"

Paul Groth: the idea is to relate two distinct URIs but also that one of them occurs in a bundle -- it's specialization plus "this other URI occurs in a bundle"

18:21:50 <tlebo> tool\:bob-2011-11-17 is not == :bob

Timothy Lebo: tool\:bob-2011-11-17 is not == :bob

18:22:01 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: believes GK1 is referring to "locatedIn"

Khalid Belhajjame: believes GK1 is referring to "locatedIn"

18:23:19 <jcheney> What if you do this: bundle b1 entity(bob,[a=1]) end   bundle b2 entity(bob,[a =2]) end

James Cheney: What if you do this: bundle b1 entity(bob,[a=1]) end bundle b2 entity(bob,[a =2]) end

18:23:32 <Paolo> tlebo: (explains the use of inContext and specialization in the example above)

Timothy Lebo: (explains the use of inContext and specialization in the example above)

18:23:44 <jcheney> What stops me from concluding that entity(bob,[a=1,a=2]) ignoring the bundles?

James Cheney: What stops me from concluding that entity(bob,[a=1,a=2]) ignoring the bundles?

18:24:04 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

18:25:34 <khalidBelhajjame> hasProvenanceIn is described in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html

Khalid Belhajjame: hasProvenanceIn is described in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html

18:25:56 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

18:26:01 <Paolo> GK1: what are we getting out of contextualization that can't be stated more simply?

Graham Klyne: what are we getting out of contextualization that can't be stated more simply?

18:26:03 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

18:26:28 <Paolo> TomDN: maybe a qualified specialization?

Tom De Nies: maybe a qualified specialization?

18:26:44 <TomDN> (which isbasicly what a contextualization is)

Tom De Nies: (which isbasicly what a contextualization is)

18:26:59 <Paolo> GK1: the problem is what people may and up doing with these properties

Graham Klyne: the problem is what people may end up doing with these properties

18:27:07 <Paolo> s/and/end
18:27:21 <jcheney> can we feed this into RDF as a use case/possible requirement instead?

James Cheney: can we feed this into RDF as a use case/possible requirement instead?

18:27:47 <jcheney> (or at least the "inContext part")

James Cheney: (or at least the "inContext part")

18:27:49 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically want to qualify a specialization with a bundle

Paul Groth: we basically want to qualify a specialization with a bundle

18:27:55 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

18:28:23 <TomDN> because we want it to inherit the same aspects as in the other bundle?

Tom De Nies: because we want it to inherit the same aspects as in the other bundle?

18:28:29 <Paolo> GK1: why do we you want to qualify specialization itself, rather than the entity itself that is introduced by the specialization?

Graham Klyne: why do we you want to qualify specialization itself, rather than the entity itself that is introduced by the specialization?

18:29:05 <jun> @jcheney, we already did when we presented the XG work in the RDF workshop 2010. Good idea to take what they have at the  moment for a test drive

Jun Zhao: @jcheney, we already did when we presented the XG work in the RDF workshop 2010. Good idea to take what they have at the moment for a test drive

18:29:13 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

18:29:25 <tlebo> using a subclass of Involvmeent will require a third resource... :-(

Timothy Lebo: using a subclass of Involvmeent will require a third resource... :-(

18:29:30 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

18:29:45 <jcheney> @jun, yes it would be good to see how that is handled and whether it addresses this

James Cheney: @jun, yes it would be good to see how that is handled and whether it addresses this

18:29:52 <tlebo> prov\:inContext  is the additional "fixed aspect" of the specialization.

Timothy Lebo: prov\:inContext is the additional "fixed aspect" of the specialization.

18:29:53 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: maybe decompose contextualization into specialization plus another property

Khalid Belhajjame: maybe decompose contextualization into specialization plus another property

18:30:18 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: for example, the same idea may apply to alternate -- wouldn't that be another type of contextualization?

Khalid Belhajjame: for example, the same idea may apply to alternate -- wouldn't that be another type of contextualization?

18:30:34 <GK1> if it were decomposed, I think I'd be *much* happier

Graham Klyne: if it were decomposed, I think I'd be *much* happier

18:30:35 <jun> @jcheney: +1. but how we make a decision now ...

Jun Zhao: @jcheney: +1. but how we make a decision now ...

18:30:47 <GK1> @jun +1

Graham Klyne: @jun +1

18:30:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:30:54 <TomDN> very good point

Tom De Nies: very good point

18:30:55 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: so contextualization is "parametric" to the property that is being qualified

Khalid Belhajjame: so contextualization is "parametric" to the property that is being qualified

18:31:30 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:31:35 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: we could do contextualization for any type of relation

Khalid Belhajjame: we could do contextualization for any type of relation

18:31:51 <tlebo> this was my original isTopicOf .

Timothy Lebo: this was my original isTopicOf .

18:32:45 <Paolo> Luc: it's the usual problem of n-ary relations modelled with RDF properties. we decided to go with functional contextualized to clarify that it is a 3-way relation encoded as a binary

Luc Moreau: it's the usual problem of n-ary relations modelled with RDF properties. we decided to go with functional contextualized to clarify that it is a 3-way relation encoded as a binary

18:33:40 <Paolo> Luc: wanted to avoi the qualified pattern for this

Luc Moreau: wanted to avoid the qualified pattern for this

18:33:46 <Paolo> s/avoi/avoid
18:34:19 <Paolo> tlebo: rigt now contextualize is not functional, but it could be

Timothy Lebo: rigt now contextualize is not functional, but it could be

18:34:38 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

18:34:43 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

18:35:12 <Paolo> tlebo: re: khalidBelhajjame's suggestion:  it would broaden the intended scope of this property too much

Timothy Lebo: re: khalidBelhajjame's suggestion: it would broaden the intended scope of this property too much

18:35:55 <GK1> Are we back to doing discovery through the data model?

Graham Klyne: Are we back to doing discovery through the data model?

18:36:01 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aabb

18:36:13 <tlebo> so, khalid, you're suggesting that we just use isTopicOf with an open domain?

Timothy Lebo: so, khalid, you're suggesting that we just use isTopicOf with an open domain?

18:36:22 <tlebo> and range of bundle?

Timothy Lebo: and range of bundle?

18:37:01 <GK1> specializationOf and isTopicOf as separate properties would be fine, I think.

Graham Klyne: specializationOf and isTopicOf as separate properties would be fine, I think.

18:37:48 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aacc

18:37:57 <Luc> @gk, we were there befoer, and it doesn't work

Luc Moreau: @gk, we were there befoer, and it doesn't work

18:38:02 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:38:37 <GK1> @luc my fear is that it doesn't work because you're trying to do something that RDF semantics doesn't support.

Graham Klyne: @luc my fear is that it doesn't work because you're trying to do something that RDF semantics doesn't support.

18:38:50 <Paolo> TomDN: @khalidBelhajjame: we already have what you are suggesting

Tom De Nies: @khalidBelhajjame: we already have what you are suggesting

18:39:01 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

18:39:32 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

18:39:36 <Luc> specializationOf(new-bob,bob)   isTopic(bob,bundle)

Luc Moreau: specializationOf(new-bob,bob) isTopic(bob,bundle)

18:40:06 <tlebo> @gk1, didn't we address the RDF semantics concern?

Timothy Lebo: @gk1, didn't we address the RDF semantics concern?

18:40:32 <Paolo> Luc: suggestion is to separate out the properties, but we've tried that before. Can't replace contextualization with those two relations

Luc Moreau: suggestion is to separate out the properties, but we've tried that before. Can't replace contextualization with those two relations

18:41:08 <GK1> You *never* know in RDF what extra constraints may be placed on an entity.  That's the open worlkd model for you.

Graham Klyne: You *never* know in RDF what extra constraints may be placed on an entity. That's the open worlkd model for you.

18:41:44 <TomDN> you could specify "contextualized alternate"like this: contextualization(new-bob,bob), alternateOf(newer-bob,new-bob)

Tom De Nies: you could specify "contextualized alternate"like this: contextualization(bob,bob), alternateOf(newer-bob,bob)

18:42:21 <TomDN> That way you keep consistent in your own bundle, reduce overhead, and still remain the link to the original entity(bob)

Tom De Nies: That way you keep consistent in your own bundle, reduce overhead, and still remain the link to the original entity(bob)

18:42:28 <Curt> contextualization is a specialization of specialization

Curt Tilmes: contextualization is a specialization of specialization

18:43:23 <Paolo> Luc: in the example, Bob has a new fixed aspect, namely the bundle. the isTopic does not address that

Luc Moreau: in the example, Bob has a new fixed aspect, namely the bundle. the isTopic does not address that

18:43:40 <GK1> "You don't know what aspects are specialized in a particular bundle" - this sounds like use of RDF reification, but the original use of of that had precisely the problem that I'm afraid of.

Graham Klyne: "You don't know what aspects are specialized in a particular bundle" - this sounds like use of RDF reification, but the original use of of that had precisely the problem that I'm afraid of.

18:44:37 <GK1> Sound is patchy.

Graham Klyne: Sound is patchy.

18:44:43 <Paolo> s/new-bob/bob
18:44:52 <Paolo> s/bob/new-bob
18:44:58 <Paolo> (sorry, bob)

(sorry, bob)

18:46:12 <tlebo> Tim's modeling of what he thinks Khalid would prefer: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

Timothy Lebo: Tim's modeling of what he thinks Khalid would prefer: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

18:46:30 <GK1> "the bob that is described in this specific bundle" -- that;'s exactly the problem.  bob is bob is bob.  RDSF semantics doesn't allow different bobs (with the same name "bob")

Graham Klyne: "the bob that is described in this specific bundle" -- that;'s exactly the problem. bob is bob is bob. RDSF semantics doesn't allow different bobs (with the same name "bob")

18:48:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:48:31 <TomDN> so contextualization is a means of getting a "Linked Open Bobs" cloud...

Tom De Nies: so contextualization is a means of getting a "Linked Open Bobs" cloud...

18:48:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:49:07 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

18:49:13 <Paolo> Luc: yes, it's the same bob in both activities, each described in a bundle. you can use specialization of bob to distinguish the contexts, using two different URIs and then relating them

Luc Moreau: yes, it's the same bob in both activities, each described in a bundle. you can use specialization of bob to distinguish the contexts, using two different URIs and then relating them

18:49:16 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

18:49:35 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

18:49:47 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

18:50:25 <Paolo> tlebo: bundles are just sets of assertions, all contextualization is doing is to say that a bundle describes an entity

Timothy Lebo: bundles are just sets of assertions, all contextualization is doing is to say that a bundle describes an entity

18:51:12 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: but now bundle is made to do more, too much semantics. the two bobs are different because they are in different bundles

Khalid Belhajjame: but now bundle is made to do more, too much semantics. the two bobs are different because they are in different bundles

18:51:31 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

18:51:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:51:39 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:51:43 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

18:52:09 <GK1> I am thinking that what Luc just said is maybe OK, but it's not at all clear (to me) from the spec.  The problem is that the definition of "bundle" says nothing about context.  It;'s just a bundle of assertions - there no claim that the assertions are in any way from a common "context".

Graham Klyne: I am thinking that what Luc just said is maybe OK, but it's not at all clear (to me) from the spec. The problem is that the definition of "bundle" says nothing about context. It;'s just a bundle of assertions - there no claim that the assertions are in any way from a common "context".

18:52:28 <GK1> "Applications can exploit it inthe way they want" ... that's what I fear.

Graham Klyne: "Applications can exploit it inthe way they want" ... that's what I fear.

18:52:50 <Paolo> Luc: the link to bundles is just a general mechanism, which enables apps to then add their own interpretations, as illustrated in the bob performance example

Luc Moreau: the link to bundles is just a general mechanism, which enables apps to then add their own interpretations, as illustrated in the bob performance example

18:53:06 <TomDN> linkedSpecialization?

Tom De Nies: linkedSpecialization?

18:53:09 <Paolo> pgroth: should we just rename context to something that is less overloaded?

Paul Groth: should we just rename context to something that is less overloaded?

18:53:22 <jcheney> -1 -1 -1

James Cheney: -1 -1 -1

18:53:51 <tlebo> http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

Timothy Lebo: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

18:53:55 <GK1> Renaming might help, but I think the problem is that there's no formal restraint on how it can be used.

Graham Klyne: Renaming might help, but I think the problem is that there's no formal restraint on how it can be used.

18:53:59 <pgroth> http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

Paul Groth: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps

18:54:41 <Paolo> tlebo: inContext --> inBundle?

Timothy Lebo: inContext --> inBundle?

18:54:47 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:54:55 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

18:55:39 <GK1> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

18:55:43 <pgroth> ack gk

Paul Groth: ack gk

18:56:16 <Paolo> GK1: elaborates on tlebo's titanpad example

Graham Klyne: elaborates on tlebo's titanpad example

18:58:40 <Reza_Bfar> A side note is that in the RDMBS world, I think the word "View" is used to accomplish some of these things.  So, a "View" in the RDMBS world can be some selective, specialized, way of looking at things.

Reza B'Far: A side note is that in the RDMBS world, I think the word "View" is used to accomplish some of these things. So, a "View" in the RDMBS world can be some selective, specialized, way of looking at things.

18:58:44 <Reza_Bfar> Just an idea...

Reza B'Far: Just an idea...

18:59:09 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:00:17 <Paolo> GK1: requests that the text describing contextualization be made more clear as to its intended meaning

Graham Klyne: requests that the text describing contextualization be made more clear as to its intended meaning

19:00:41 <Paolo> GK1: the term "context" introduced without specification of its meaning

Graham Klyne: the term "context" introduced without specification of its meaning

19:01:01 <Paolo> pgroth: we agree that the term is overloaded

Paul Groth: we agree that the term is overloaded

19:01:29 <Paolo> pgroth: suggests to replace contextualization with isTopicOf

Paul Groth: suggests to replace contextualization with isTopicOf

19:02:17 <GK1> Do you mean isTopicOf(e1, e2, bundle)?

Graham Klyne: Do you mean isTopicOf(e1, e2, bundle)?

19:02:25 <GK1> Seems odd to me.

Graham Klyne: Seems odd to me.

19:03:06 <Curt> topic implies even more semantics -- it seems we want less..

Curt Tilmes: topic implies even more semantics -- it seems we want less..

19:03:06 <GK1> why not:  isTopicOf(e2, bundle) ; ispecializationOf(e1, e2)  ?

Graham Klyne: why not: isTopicOf(e2, bundle) ; ispecializationOf(e1, e2) ?

19:04:09 <Curt> ispecializationOf(e1, e2) doesn't tie to the specific instance of the bundle

Curt Tilmes: ispecializationOf(e1, e2) doesn't tie to the specific instance of the bundle

19:04:24 <GK1> That's kind of the point

Graham Klyne: That's kind of the point

19:04:54 <Paolo> pgroth: how about adding an optional bundle argument to ispecializationOf

Paul Groth: how about adding an optional bundle argument to ispecializationOf

19:05:06 <Paolo> jcheney: not clear what the implications would be

James Cheney: not clear what the implications would be

19:06:00 <GK1> I think that adding an attribute to specializationOf would be better.  It suptypes the relation.

Graham Klyne: I think that adding an attribute to specializationOf would be better. It suptypes the relation.

19:06:10 <Paolo> pgroth: one option is to keep the structure, trying to rephrase it, and mark it as at risk

Paul Groth: one option is to keep the structure, trying to rephrase it, and mark it as at risk

19:06:45 <GK1> I think it's less inviting to abuse.

Graham Klyne: I think it's less inviting to abuse.

19:07:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:07:23 <Paolo> Luc: need to ask Ivan about what we can do once we flag as "at risk"

Luc Moreau: need to ask Ivan about what we can do once we flag as "at risk"

19:07:51 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:07:58 <Paolo> pgroth: marking it as 'at risk' implies that we can still remove it if no agreement is reached

Paul Groth: marking it as 'at risk' implies that we can still remove it if no agreement is reached

19:08:11 <GK1> How not a subtype (didn't hear clearly)

Graham Klyne: How not a subtype (didn't hear clearly)

19:08:42 <tlebo> @gk, b/c different arity

Timothy Lebo: @gk, b/c different arity

19:09:00 <TomDN> (just suggesting more names here: isExternalSpecializationOf(e1,e2, bundle), isSpecializedInBundle(e1,e2,bundle), ...)

Tom De Nies: (just suggesting more names here: isExternalSpecializationOf(e1,e2, bundle), isSpecializedInBundle(e1,e2,bundle), ...)

19:10:13 <GK1> @TomDn "isSpecializedInBundle" I think is problem.  Maybe "isSpecializedFromBundle"?

Graham Klyne: @TomDn "isSpecializedInBundle" I think is problem. Maybe "isSpecializedFromBundle"?

19:10:15 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#contextualization-specialization

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#contextualization-specialization

19:11:01 <TomDN> @GK1: sure, was just throwing things out there...because the name is what we seem to be stuck upon

Tom De Nies: @GK1: sure, was just throwing things out there...because the name is what we seem to be stuck upon

19:11:42 <jcheney> Can a q+

James Cheney: Can a q+

19:11:47 <jcheney> oops

James Cheney: oops

19:11:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:11:48 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

19:11:53 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

19:12:36 <Paolo> jcheney: which bundle does the result of an inference live?

James Cheney: which bundle does the result of an inference live?

19:12:46 <Paolo> GK1: should go in the top leve

Graham Klyne: should go in the top level

19:12:51 <Paolo> s/leve/level
19:13:55 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:14:02 <Curt> +1 jcheney -- I think you nailed it.

Curt Tilmes: +1 jcheney -- I think you nailed it.

19:14:05 <Paolo> jcheney: it seems we want specialization but in a way that "goes across" bundles, and we haven't thought that through

James Cheney: it seems we want specialization but in a way that "goes across" bundles, and we haven't thought that through

19:14:32 <Paolo> jcheney: so it may be similar to specialization, but not quite

James Cheney: so it may be similar to specialization, but not quite

19:14:36 <GK1> Sorry ... sound was dropping out - so I thought James had finishged.  I'd like to see the semantics after james has thought about it.

Graham Klyne: Sorry ... sound was dropping out - so I thought James had finishged. I'd like to see the semantics after james has thought about it.

19:14:42 <Reza_Bfar> James, can you go over it again please?  I didn't get it.

Reza B'Far: James, can you go over it again please? I didn't get it.

19:15:03 <Paolo> jcheney: so we need to go back and think about it

James Cheney: so we need to go back and think about it

19:15:12 <jcheney> @reza - at lunch maybe?

James Cheney: @reza - at lunch maybe?

19:15:15 <Reza_Bfar> sure.

Reza B'Far: sure.

19:15:16 <Reza_Bfar> thanks

Reza B'Far: thanks

19:15:21 <Paolo> pgroth: was suggesting to make a quicker decision, for the sake of time

Paul Groth: was suggesting to make a quicker decision, for the sake of time

19:15:39 <Paolo> q+

q+

19:15:57 <TomDN> to address the concern raised about the ternary structure: you're still free to use 2 binary relations

Tom De Nies: to address the concern raised about the ternary structure: you're still free to use 2 binary relations

19:15:57 <TomDN> this is just an easier way to assert it in 1 statement

Tom De Nies: this is just an easier way to assert it in 1 statement

19:16:12 <GK1> I'm OK with a vote.  I'd reserve the right to maintain an objection going forward to last call.

Graham Klyne: I'm OK with a vote. I'd reserve the right to maintain an objection going forward to last call.

19:16:14 <TomDN> much like derivation is to assert a usage + generation

Tom De Nies: much like derivation is to assert a usage + generation

19:16:32 <Paolo> pgroth: we could also have another round of discussion, but with a time limit

Paul Groth: we could also have another round of discussion, but with a time limit

19:16:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:16:56 <GK1> OKJ

Graham Klyne: OKJ

19:16:59 <Paolo> pgroth: we could also vote on dropping it

Paul Groth: we could also vote on dropping it

19:17:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:17:41 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

19:18:24 <Paolo> pgroth

pgroth

19:18:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:18:39 <tlebo> q+ to say rename and at risk seems to correspond to the straw pol

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say rename and at risk seems to correspond to the straw pol

19:18:41 <Paolo> pgroth: comments on what option people prefer?

Paul Groth: comments on what option people prefer?

19:19:29 <Paolo> tlebo: giving the recent straw poll, the renaming + marking seems like a reasonable option

Timothy Lebo: giving the recent straw poll, the renaming + marking seems like a reasonable option

19:19:38 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

19:19:42 <pgroth> straw poll: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk

Paul Groth: straw poll: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk

19:19:46 <GK1> renaming to...?  Do we know?

Graham Klyne: renaming to...? Do we know?

19:19:48 <Paolo> +1

+1

19:19:51 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

19:19:53 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

19:19:54 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

19:19:55 <Reza_Bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

19:19:56 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

19:19:56 <GK1> -0

Graham Klyne: -0

19:19:56 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

19:19:57 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

19:19:59 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

19:20:00 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

19:20:12 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1

19:20:12 <tlebo> hi, @jun!

Timothy Lebo: hi, @jun!

19:20:23 <Dong> 0.5

Trung Huynh: 0.5

19:20:26 <jun> hey, @tlebo!

Jun Zhao: hey, @tlebo!

19:20:44 <Dong> I want it renamed, but not marked as 'at risk'

Trung Huynh: I want it renamed, but not marked as 'at risk'

19:20:48 <pgroth> accepted: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk

RESOLVED: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk

19:21:21 <GK1> I would oppose if not "at risk"

Graham Klyne: I would oppose if not "at risk"

19:21:36 <Paolo> Luc: @Dong wise to put it at risk because it allows us to get feedback from implementers

Luc Moreau: @Dong wise to put it at risk because it allows us to get feedback from implementers

19:22:13 <pgroth> Topic: Primer

3. Primer

Summary: After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.

19:22:28 <Paolo> TOPIC prov-primer

TOPIC prov-primer

<pgroth> Summary: After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.
19:23:08 <Paolo> pgroth: question is, do we take it to LC along with the others, or delay so we can incorporate feedback

Paul Groth: question is, do we take it to LC along with the others, or delay so we can incorporate feedback

19:23:29 <GK1> I'm going to have to drop out now.

Graham Klyne: I'm going to have to drop out now.

19:23:40 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK

19:23:50 <Paolo> YolandaGil: should not be a problem to delay

Yolanda Gil: should not be a problem to delay

19:24:24 <Paolo> pgroth: primer currently talks about DM only. should PAQ and other material be incorporated?

Paul Groth: primer currently talks about DM only. should PAQ and other material be incorporated?

19:24:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:25:04 <Reza_Bfar> From implementers perspective, I think Paul's suggestion is the way to go.  I would leave the primer as is with just a pointer to PAQ.

Reza B'Far: From implementers perspective, I think Paul's suggestion is the way to go. I would leave the primer as is with just a pointer to PAQ.

19:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: replies to himself: the PAQ by itself should be sufficiently self-describing

Paul Groth: replies to himself: the PAQ by itself should be sufficiently self-describing

19:25:14 <Reza_Bfar> Keeps the primer lean.

Reza B'Far: Keeps the primer lean.

19:25:20 <Paolo> Curt: PAQ reads well on its own

Curt Tilmes: PAQ reads well on its own

19:25:22 <Reza_Bfar> +1 for Luc's comments.

Reza B'Far: +1 for Luc's comments.

19:25:51 <Paolo> q+

q+

19:25:53 <Paolo> YolandaGil:

Yolanda Gil:

19:26:19 <Paolo> YolandaGil: examples need to highlight provenance coming from different sources (publishers...)

Yolanda Gil: examples need to highlight provenance coming from different sources (publishers...)

19:26:54 <Paolo> YolandaGil: would add an example of bundle, and thus of provenance of provenance

Yolanda Gil: would add an example of bundle, and thus of provenance of provenance

19:26:54 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:27:38 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

19:28:12 <jun> Going to drop out now! Enjoy your lunch! Bye!

Jun Zhao: Going to drop out now! Enjoy your lunch! Bye!

19:28:18 <Paolo> YolandaGil: nothing about collections in primer ATM. there will not be anything in the future, either

Yolanda Gil: nothing about collections in primer ATM. there will not be anything in the future, either

19:29:55 <Paolo> (lunch break)

(lunch break)

19:30:01 <jun> thee more issues

Jun Zhao: thee more issues

19:30:07 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aacc

19:30:08 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun

19:30:08 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

19:30:08 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, jun, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, jun, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc

19:30:08 <jcheney> Quick and dirty semantics draft at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles

James Cheney: Quick and dirty semantics draft at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles

20:28:52 <pgroth> is anyone on the phone?

(No events recorded for 58 minutes)

Paul Groth: is anyone on the phone?

20:30:40 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

20:30:47 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa

20:33:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

20:35:57 <pgroth> subtopic primary source

Paul Groth: subtopic primary source

20:36:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:36:22 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source

Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source

20:36:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:36:45 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

20:37:06 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

<pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM continued

4. PROV-DM continued

Summary: the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call

<pgroth> Summary: the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call
20:37:22 <TomDN_> subtopic: primary source

4.1. primary source

Summary: Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.

<pgroth> Summary: Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.
20:37:50 <TomDN_> pgroth: Daniel had some objections about hadPrimarySource in his review

Paul Groth: Daniel had some objections about hadPrimarySource in his review [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:38:52 <TomDN_> jcheney: I'm surprised of the use of subtype instead of subproperty. (It's a naming issue)

James Cheney: I'm surprised of the use of subtype instead of subproperty. (It's a naming issue) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:39:46 <TomDN_> ... we're already saying wasDerivedFrom, which can have a more specific type, such as wasRevisionOf

Tom De Nies: ... we're already saying wasDerivedFrom, which can have a more specific type, such as wasRevisionOf

20:40:31 <TomDN_> ... we use prov:type for this

Tom De Nies: ... we use prov:type for this

20:40:39 <GK1> @jcheney taking a quick look at  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles - at first glance, what your describing is beyoind the expressive capability of current RDF semantics.  This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see coming from RDF WG for semantics of Datasets (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Documents#RDF_1.1_Semantics), but so far there's no editors' draft of that.  I guess you've seen Guha's thesis and other work in this area?  Also,

Graham Klyne: @jcheney taking a quick look at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles - at first glance, what your describing is beyoind the expressive capability of current RDF semantics. This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see coming from RDF WG for semantics of Datasets (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Documents#RDF_1.1_Semantics), but so far there's no editors' draft of that. I guess you've seen Guha's thesis and other work in this area? Also,

20:41:23 <TomDN_> Luc: you've got the binary relation (wasDerivedFrom), and the extra attributes to specify the association class

Luc Moreau: you've got the binary relation (wasDerivedFrom), and the extra attributes to specify the association class [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:41:32 <TomDN_> jcheney: ok

James Cheney: ok [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:42:16 <TomDN_> jcheney: not an issue, moving on...

James Cheney: not an issue, moving on... [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:43:05 <TomDN_> Luc: Khalid had some remarks about the clarity of the definition

Luc Moreau: Khalid had some remarks about the clarity of the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:43:16 <TomDN_> khalid: but it can be solved by simply rephrasing

Khalid Belhajjame: but it can be solved by simply rephrasing [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:43:31 <TomDN_> pgroth: anyone else have this problem with the definition?

Paul Groth: anyone else have this problem with the definition? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:43:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:44:07 <tlebo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Timothy Lebo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

20:44:07 <TomDN_> zednik: it's supposed to be a first-hand experience of an event

Stephan Zednik: it's supposed to be a first-hand experience of an event [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:44:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:44:34 <TomDN_> pgroth: so is there still an issue?

Paul Groth: so is there still an issue? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:44:44 <TomDN_> ... and/or suggestions?

Tom De Nies: ... and/or suggestions?

20:44:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:45:07 <TomDN_> Khalid: can we find another way of characterizing it?

Khalid Belhajjame: can we find another way of characterizing it? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:45:13 <TomDN_> paolo: it can be derived from entities

Paolo Missier: it can be derived from entities [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:45:47 <jcheney> @GK1: Yes, this is what makes me nervous about contextualization.  However, what I wrote is very preliminary so far.  Haven't read Guha's work carefully but familiar with related ideas in modal logic

James Cheney: @GK1: Yes, this is what makes me nervous about contextualization. However, what I wrote is very preliminary so far. Haven't read Guha's work carefully but familiar with related ideas in modal logic

20:45:47 <TomDN_> Khalid: it would be easier to say: primary source cannot be derived by any other source

Khalid Belhajjame: it would be easier to say: primary source cannot be derived by any other source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:46:00 <TomDN_> tlebo: but that's not true, they can

Timothy Lebo: but that's not true, they can [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:46:01 <Dong> I wonder if there is a strong use case to include hasPrimarySource in the DM

Trung Huynh: I wonder if there is a strong use case to include hasPrimarySource in the DM

20:46:35 <TomDN_> Paolo: maybe we should find the "primary source" for the primary source definition...

Paolo Missier: maybe we should find the "primary source" for the primary source definition... [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:46:43 <TomDN_> ... (to make sure it's clear)

Tom De Nies: ... (to make sure it's clear)

20:46:59 <Dong> because the definition of it seems to up to the user

Trung Huynh: because the definition of it seems to up to the user

20:47:10 <TomDN_> ... We could offer a citation for the definition

Tom De Nies: ... We could offer a citation for the definition

20:47:17 <pgroth> http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

Paul Groth: http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

20:47:42 <GK1> @jcheney - ah ... I thought the language was reminiscent of modal logic.  I don't recall that Guha appeals to modal logic in his thesis ... it's more like full FoL with rules for mapping between contexts (he calls them "lifting rules").

Graham Klyne: @jcheney - ah ... I thought the language was reminiscent of modal logic. I don't recall that Guha appeals to modal logic in his thesis ... it's more like full FoL with rules for mapping between contexts (he calls them "lifting rules").

20:47:50 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

20:48:05 <TomDN_> "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. " (priceton)

Tom De Nies: "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. " (priceton)

20:48:22 <pgroth> ack curt

Paul Groth: ack curt

20:48:25 <TomDN_> Curt: tries to apply this concept to other domains, and it seems to fit

Curt Tilmes: tries to apply this concept to other domains, and it seems to fit [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:48:38 <GK1> @jcheney BTW, my previous comment got truncated.  The bit that (I think) went missing was:  Also, there was an informal proposal from Pat Hayes to the RDF WG a couple of months ago.  My point is, I think you should be working with these guys to work out a common model, not in isolation.

Graham Klyne: @jcheney BTW, my previous comment got truncated. The bit that (I think) went missing was: Also, there was an informal proposal from Pat Hayes to the RDF WG a couple of months ago.  My point is, I think you should be working with these guys to work out a common model, not in isolation.

20:48:42 <TomDN_> ... Does it accomodate data?

Tom De Nies: ... Does it accomodate data?

20:48:45 <TomDN_> everyone said yes

Tom De Nies: everyone said yes

20:49:08 <TomDN_> pgroth: consensus is to add a suitable definition/citation to clarify

Paul Groth: consensus is to add a suitable definition/citation to clarify [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:49:42 <TomDN_> dong: what's the distinction between derivation and primary source?

Trung Huynh: what's the distinction between derivation and primary source? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:50:03 <TomDN_> tlebo: depends on what you're trying to do with the provenance

Timothy Lebo: depends on what you're trying to do with the provenance [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:50:15 <TomDN_> pgroth: it's purposely left subjective

Paul Groth: it's purposely left subjective [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:50:20 <TomDN_> ... to that end

Tom De Nies: ... to that end

20:50:48 <TomDN_> zednik: scientists don't add as much value to derivation as to primary source

Stephan Zednik: scientists don't add as much value to derivation as to primary source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:51:04 <TomDN_> ... They don't always want to full derivation

Tom De Nies: ... They don't always want the full derivation

20:51:10 <TomDN_> s/to/the
20:51:20 <Reza_BFar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

20:51:47 <TomDN_> dong: We're trying to produce a standard, but we don't define this difference

Trung Huynh: We're trying to produce a standard, but we don't define this difference [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:52:21 <TomDN_> reza: When you look at legal documents, primary source is atomary

Reza B'Far: When you look at legal documents, primary source is atomary [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:52:39 <TomDN_> ... You don't look beyond this point.

Tom De Nies: ... You don't look beyond this point.

20:52:40 <Dong> +q

Trung Huynh: +q

20:52:56 <TomDN_> ... There is some distinction that needs to be made

Tom De Nies: ... There is some distinction that needs to be made

20:53:26 <TomDN_> pgroth: We had originalSource first, but the proper term is primarySource.

Paul Groth: We had originalSource first, but the proper term is primarySource. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:53:33 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

20:53:41 <pgroth> ack Reza_BFar

Paul Groth: ack Reza_BFar

20:53:44 <pgroth> ack Dong

Paul Groth: ack Dong

20:54:00 <TomDN_> ... It's clear anough to use when looking at the English definition, but it's open enough for interpretation

Tom De Nies: ... It's clear anough to use when looking at the English definition, but it's open enough for interpretation

20:54:01 <Reza_BFar> is Atomicity the common theme?

Reza B'Far: is Atomicity the common theme?

20:54:13 <Reza_BFar> can't break it down further, etc.

Reza B'Far: can't break it down further, etc.

20:54:38 <TomDN_> dong: I'm concerned about this openness to interpretation

Trung Huynh: I'm concerned about this openness to interpretation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:55:05 <TomDN_> tlebo: but that is mentioned in the wiki page

Timothy Lebo: but that is mentioned in the wiki page [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:55:25 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame

20:55:28 <Reza_BFar> +q paulo

Reza B'Far: +q paulo

20:55:29 <TomDN_> ... it is discipline specific

Tom De Nies: ... it is discipline specific

20:55:51 <TomDN_> khalid: it's not something we want to infer, but that is specified by the asserter

Khalid Belhajjame: it's not something we want to infer, but that is specified by the asserter [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:55:57 <tlebo> DM: "It is recognized that the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain"

Deborah McGuinness: "It is recognized that the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain" [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

20:56:06 <Curt> an entity can also have multiple primarysources

Curt Tilmes: an entity can also have multiple primarysources

20:56:10 <Paolo> q+

q+

20:56:15 <Paolo> q-

q-

20:56:22 <TomDN_> The name primarySource implies that this is the MAIN entity that was used for the derivation

Tom De Nies: The name primarySource implies that this is the MAIN entity that was used for the derivation

20:57:07 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:57:14 <pgroth> ack Paulo

Paul Groth: ack Paulo

20:57:32 <Dong> Is there a constraint "there can only one primary source"?

Trung Huynh: Is there a constraint "there can only one primary source"?

20:57:36 <hook> +q

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: +q

20:58:25 <Reza_BFar> I would say that, in a provenance graph, it would mean a point in the graph that has no derivation before it and we know that there is no way we can find derivation that caused it...

Reza B'Far: I would say that, in a provenance graph, it would mean a point in the graph that has no derivation before it and we know that there is no way we can find derivation that caused it...

20:58:58 <TomDN_> hook: primary source is usually something that is validated by the domain experts

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: primary source is usually something that is validated by the domain experts [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:59:05 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:59:09 <Reza_BFar> Pq

Reza B'Far: Pq

20:59:12 <Reza_BFar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

20:59:13 <pgroth> ack hook\

Paul Groth: ack hook\

20:59:14 <TomDN_> ... can we capture this contextual element?

Tom De Nies: ... can we capture this contextual element?

20:59:19 <Reza_BFar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

20:59:24 <Reza_BFar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

20:59:25 <TomDN_> Luc: it's a relation, not a type of entity

Luc Moreau: it's a relation, not a type of entity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

20:59:37 <pgroth> ack Reza

Paul Groth: ack Reza

20:59:39 <TomDN_> ... the context is given by the relation

Tom De Nies: ... the context is given by the relation

20:59:40 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

20:59:41 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

21:00:16 <TomDN_> Reza: if there's a discontinuity in a provenance graph, the point right before this discontinuity is the primary source

Reza B'Far: if there's a discontinuity in a provenance graph, the point right after this discontinuity is the primary source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:00:31 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:00:31 <TomDN_> s/before/after
21:00:36 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

21:00:37 <tlebo> so, sounds like there's plenty of uses for it :-)

Timothy Lebo: so, sounds like there's plenty of uses for it :-)

21:01:09 <hook> +q

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: +q

21:01:15 <TomDN_> pgroth: it's clear that it's useful. But it is left purposely scruffy, to support all these different uses

Paul Groth: it's clear that it's useful. But it is left purposely scruffy, to support all these different uses [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:01:27 <TomDN_> ... Does anyone want it out of the spec?

Tom De Nies: ... Does anyone want it out of the spec?

21:01:43 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

21:01:47 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

21:01:50 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

21:01:57 <TomDN_> Luc: As concluded earlier, we should add a suitable definition/citation for it

Luc Moreau: As concluded earlier, we should add a suitable definition/citation for it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:02:09 <pgroth> resolved: add a suitable primary source for the definition of primary source

RESOLVED: add a suitable primary source for the definition of primary source

21:02:25 <TomDN_> subtopic: tracedTo

4.2. tracedTo

Summary: Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.

<pgroth> Summary: Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
21:02:59 <TomDN_> Luc: I don't like tracedTo

Luc Moreau: I don't like tracedTo [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:03:18 <TomDN_> ... It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, but people objected to dropping it.

Tom De Nies: ... It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, but people objected to dropping it.

21:03:46 <TomDN_> ... The issue is: do we want to infer tracedTo across specialization?

Tom De Nies: ... The issue is: do we want to infer tracedTo across specialization?

21:04:14 <Paolo> q+

q+

21:04:16 <TomDN_> .. and how does this add up  with the definition in the DM?

Tom De Nies: .. and how does this add up with the definition in the DM?

21:04:23 <TomDN_> (it doesnt support it)

Tom De Nies: (it doesnt support it)

21:04:25 <pgroth> ack paolo

Paul Groth: ack paolo

21:04:31 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:04:34 <TomDN_> paolo: Why not drop it?

Paolo Missier: Why not drop it? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:04:43 <TomDN_> ... I would.

Tom De Nies: ... I would.

21:05:09 <TomDN_> pgroth: I like it!

Paul Groth: I like it! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:05:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:05:42 <TomDN_> ... It allows to express notions of influence that are guaranteed to be transitive

Tom De Nies: ... It allows to express notions of influence that are guaranteed to be transitive

21:05:52 <TomDN_> ... And it's wooly

Tom De Nies: ... And it's wooly

21:06:15 <TomDN_> ... Which is great when you try to reconstruct provenance

Tom De Nies: ... Which is great when you try to reconstruct provenance

21:06:38 <TomDN_> ... and derivedFrom isn't necessarily transitive

Tom De Nies: ... and derivedFrom isn't necessarily transitive

21:06:58 <tlebo> q+ to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.

21:07:10 <TomDN_> ... For these types of reconstructing applications, I'd add attributes to derivedFrom if tracedTo is dropped

Tom De Nies: ... For these types of reconstructing applications, I'd add attributes to derivedFrom if tracedTo is dropped

21:07:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

21:07:14 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:07:30 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

21:07:30 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.

21:07:34 <TomDN_> tlebo: In prov-o, we have this whole subproperty tree under wasDerivedFrom

Timothy Lebo: In prov-o, we have this whole subproperty tree under wasDerivedFrom [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:08:14 <TomDN_> ... If tracedTo disappears, it would be bad

Tom De Nies: ... If tracedTo disappears, it would be bad

21:08:27 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

21:08:48 <TomDN_> ... When reconstructing/stitching provenance entities, tracedTo is useful

Tom De Nies: ... When reconstructing/stitching provenance entities, tracedTo is useful

21:08:48 <Paolo> q+

q+

21:08:50 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

21:09:02 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

21:10:02 <TomDN_> Luc: I'm not sure that the inferences in the constraints are the ones we want

Luc Moreau: I'm not sure that the inferences in the constraints are the ones we want [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:10:07 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:10:14 <TomDN_> ... and how they influence the definition in the DM

Tom De Nies: ... and how they influence the definition in the DM

21:10:50 <hook> q+

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: q+

21:11:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ack khalidBelhajjame

Khalid Belhajjame: ack khalidBelhajjame

21:11:02 <TomDN_> tlebo: just founded the "Rescue TracedTo Foundation"

Timothy Lebo: just founded the "Rescue TracedTo Foundation" [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:11:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:11:30 <tlebo> Don't Club Baby Seals: Save TracedTo!

Timothy Lebo: Don't Club Baby Seals: Save TracedTo!

21:11:37 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

21:11:58 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

21:12:12 <TomDN_> paolo: The reason I said to drop it is that it seems more than graph traversal that ignores the relation types, but when it tries to pick some particular paths, it seems arbitrary

Paolo Missier: The reason I said to drop it is that it seems more than graph traversal that ignores the relation types, but when it tries to pick some particular paths, it seems arbitrary [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:12:26 <TomDN_> ... I'd like to see this constrained more

Tom De Nies: ... I'd like to see this constrained more

21:12:29 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-trace

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-trace

21:12:38 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

21:12:41 <TomDN_> ... Why are some traversals legal and others not?

Tom De Nies: ... Why are some traversals legal and others not?

21:12:44 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:12:55 <TomDN_> Luc: this is indeed the origin of the issue to some extent

Luc Moreau: this is indeed the origin of the issue to some extent [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:13:19 <TomDN_> pgroth: Can't we have the concept without that many implications in the constraints?

Paul Groth: Can't we have the concept without that many implications in the constraints? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:13:51 <TomDN_> pgroth: I'm currently using it for assertions

Paul Groth: I'm currently using it for assertions [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:13:55 <TomDN_> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

21:14:03 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:14:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

21:14:24 <TomDN_> hook: I fear that tracedTo would inherit semantics

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: I fear that tracedTo would inherit semantics [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:14:30 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

21:14:38 <TomDN_> ... and people would rather use this than more specific relations

Tom De Nies: ... and people would rather use this than more specific relations

21:14:41 <Luc> ack ho

Luc Moreau: ack ho

21:15:00 <TomDN_> ... (e.g. at capture time, when you want more specific stuff)

Tom De Nies: ... (e.g. at capture time, when you want more specific stuff)

21:15:16 <tlebo> is the PROV-WG really suggesting that we eliminate a transitive property?

Timothy Lebo: is the PROV-WG really suggesting that we eliminate a transitive property?

21:15:27 <TomDN_> ... It's lossy

Tom De Nies: ... It's lossy

21:15:27 <Curt> add verbiage to tracedto encouraging more specific terms

Curt Tilmes: add verbiage to tracedto encouraging more specific terms

21:16:11 <TomDN_> jcheney: How many of the inferences in the constraints are helpful or not?

James Cheney: How many of the inferences in the constraints are helpful or not? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:16:46 <tlebo> is'nt the organizing principle that it's all invovmenets among Entities?

Timothy Lebo: is'nt the organizing principle that it's all invovmenets among Entities?

21:16:52 <TomDN_> ... some are redundant

Tom De Nies: ... some are redundant

21:17:23 <TomDN_> Luc: When we designed it, we had agents in mind

Luc Moreau: When we designed it, we had agents in mind [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:17:29 <TomDN_> ... and responsibility

Tom De Nies: ... and responsibility

21:17:38 <TomDN_> jcheney: It seems a bit overloaded

James Cheney: It seems a bit overloaded [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:18:20 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

21:18:26 <tlebo> so if we cut out agents from tracedTo, then it's a transitive derivation among entities. "cutting out" Agents is addressed by just adding attribution to the traced to entity.

Timothy Lebo: so if we cut out agents from tracedTo, then it's a transitive derivation among entities. "cutting out" Agents is addressed by just adding attribution to the traced to entity.

21:18:27 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

21:18:27 <TomDN_> Luc: assuming we go for this option (?) it will be clearer in the constraints, but does it still support pgroth's/hook's use case?

Luc Moreau: assuming we go for this option (?) it will be clearer in the constraints, but does it still support pgroth's/hook's use case? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:18:31 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:18:34 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:18:45 <Luc> ack tom

Luc Moreau: ack tom

21:19:10 <tlebo> just define it as a transtiive derivation?

Timothy Lebo: just define it as a transtiive derivation?

21:19:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:19:32 <Luc> ack kha

Luc Moreau: ack kha

21:19:39 <TomDN_> tomdn: Do we just want to express weaker relations than derivation?

Tom De Nies: Do we just want to express weaker relations than derivation? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:20:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:20:38 <tlebo> transitivity is pretty useful for:     SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . }

Timothy Lebo: transitivity is pretty useful for: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . }

21:21:13 <TomDN_> Khalid: It seems necessary (more than just convenient) when you have missing information about the activities etc. involved when inferring derivation/transitivity

Khalid Belhajjame: It seems necessary (more than just convenient) when you have missing information about the activities etc. involved when inferring derivation/transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:21:14 <Paolo> traceability with transitivity isn't just giving a name to a closure relation?

traceability with transitivity isn't just giving a name to a closure relation?

21:21:21 <Reza_BFar> I see we need tracedTo, but it seems like it's solving limitations of sem web reasoning?  if tracedTo is a "weaker" form of derivation, then the main purpose of "weaker" is to be used at reasoning time?  and if the answer to that is Yes, then I think the issue is we want to do something that's more similar to Baysian reasoning than transitive (which is binary)... but anyways...

Reza B'Far: I see we need tracedTo, but it seems like it's solving limitations of sem web reasoning? if tracedTo is a "weaker" form of derivation, then the main purpose of "weaker" is to be used at reasoning time? and if the answer to that is Yes, then I think the issue is we want to do something that's more similar to Baysian reasoning than transitive (which is binary)... but anyways...

21:21:24 <Paolo> or rather, to the closure of a relation

or rather, to the closure of a relation

21:21:45 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:21:46 <TomDN_> pgroth: For my purposes, having it as some kind of "transitive derivation" is fine

Paul Groth: For my purposes, having it as some kind of "transitive derivation" is fine [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:21:58 <Reza_BFar> If I have 3 tracedTo's in a row, then by the time I get to the end of the graph, that "tracedTo" should get weaker and weaker...

Reza B'Far: If I have 3 tracedTo's in a row, then by the time I get to the end of the graph, that "tracedTo" should get weaker and weaker...

21:22:03 <tlebo> @paolo: tracedTo is currently an "Activity-less transitive", no?

Timothy Lebo: @paolo: tracedTo is currently an "Activity-less transitive", no?

21:22:05 <Paolo> @Reza_BFar: Bayesian??

@Reza_BFar: Bayesian??

21:22:21 <Reza_BFar> I mean there is some "certainty" value associated with the derivation.

Reza B'Far: I mean there is some "certainty" value associated with the derivation.

21:22:26 <TomDN_> ... To address Hook's issue with documentation, we could stress this in the spec

Tom De Nies: ... To address Hook's issue with documentation, we could stress this in the spec

21:22:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:22:39 <Reza_BFar> It looks like "tracedTo = [derivation + certainty factor of reasoning]"

Reza B'Far: It looks like "tracedTo = [derivation + certainty factor of reasoning]"

21:22:39 <TomDN_> Luc: then what's wrong with wasDerivedFrom?

Luc Moreau: then what's wrong with wasDerivedFrom? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:22:40 <Paolo> @Reza_BFar: oh i see what you mean

@Reza_BFar: oh i see what you mean

21:23:07 <TomDN_> tlebo: TracedTo allows you to add levels of abstraction (more than derivation)

Timothy Lebo: TracedTo allows you to add levels of abstraction (more than derivation) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:23:25 <TomDN_> +1 tlebo, well phrased

Tom De Nies: +1 tlebo, well phrased

21:23:46 <Curt> just derivation, and not attribution?

Curt Tilmes: just derivation, and not attribution?

21:24:48 <Reza_BFar>  +q

Reza B'Far: +q

21:24:52 <TomDN_> Luc: You can just derive a "scruffy"/"imprecise" derivation

Luc Moreau: You can just derive a "scruffy"/"imprecise" derivation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:25:17 <TomDN_> Luc: it doesn't have to specify all the activities involved

Luc Moreau: it doesn't have to specify all the activities involved [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:25:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:25:23 <Reza_BFar> -q

Reza B'Far: -q

21:25:31 <Reza_BFar> =q

Reza B'Far: =q

21:25:34 <Reza_BFar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

21:25:39 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:25:54 <pgroth> ack Reza_BFar

Paul Groth: ack Reza_BFar

21:26:21 <Paolo> q+

q+

21:26:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:27:08 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

21:27:15 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

21:27:41 <TomDN> Reza: we need a certainty factor with every generation. (or even derivation, but might be too complex) pgroth: It would be good, but not in the standard.

Reza B'Far: we need a certainty factor with every generation. (or even derivation, but might be too complex) pgroth: It would be good, but not in the standard. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:28:09 <TomDN> paolo: It isn;t clear to me when to use one or the other

Paolo Missier: It isn;t clear to me when to use one or the other [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:28:14 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

21:28:22 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-trace

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-trace

21:28:29 <TomDN> Curt: We should add an example for that

Curt Tilmes: We should add an example for that [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:28:39 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:28:47 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

21:28:49 <TomDN> ... but what about attribution/agents?

Tom De Nies: ... but what about attribution/agents?

21:28:53 <Luc> Trace ◊ is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation or responsibility relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.

Luc Moreau: Trace ◊ is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation or responsibility relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.

21:29:05 <TomDN> Luc: that's the def we HAD

Luc Moreau: that's the def we HAD [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:29:29 <TomDN> ... If we follow what james suggested, that would become

Tom De Nies: ... If we follow what james suggested, that would become

21:29:30 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:29:47 <TomDN> ... Trace ◊ is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation  relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.

Tom De Nies: ... Trace ◊ is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.

21:29:57 <TomDN> ... (without responsibility)

Tom De Nies: ... (without responsibility)

21:30:10 <TomDN> ... But then that's almost a regular derivation

Tom De Nies: ... But then that's almost a regular derivation

21:30:12 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:30:18 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:30:19 <Luc> ack l

Luc Moreau: ack l

21:30:21 <khalidBelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

21:30:39 <TomDN> pgroth: So we would keep tracedTo as only an inference?

Paul Groth: So we would keep tracedTo as only an inference? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:30:44 <tlebo> +1 keeping agents in.

Timothy Lebo: +1 keeping agents in.

21:30:52 <TomDN> Luc: No, that was an adaptation of the current definition

Luc Moreau: No, that was an adaptation of the current definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:31:08 <tlebo> tracedTo gives you an "activity-less" view of everything behind an entity.

Timothy Lebo: tracedTo gives you an "activity-less" view of everything behind an entity.

21:31:28 <Dong> but derivations are not transitive, I believe

Trung Huynh: but derivations are not transitive, I believe

21:31:31 <pgroth> @tlebo but you can do that with activity

Paul Groth: @tlebo but you can do that with activity

21:31:34 <TomDN> @tlebo: but so can derivations, no?

Tom De Nies: @tlebo: but so can derivations, no?

21:31:36 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:31:38 <pgroth> derivation

Paul Groth: derivation

21:31:41 <Paolo> q?

q?

21:31:47 <jcheney> +q to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case.  If there are use cases for attribution as well as derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.

James Cheney: +q to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.

21:32:01 <Paolo> q+

q+

21:32:10 <tlebo> @pgroth, but "I don't care about Activity" when I'm trying to draw the tracedTo.

Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, but "I don't care about Activity" when I'm trying to draw the tracedTo.

21:32:13 <TomDN> pgroth: I want to be able to assert floppy things, and then have transitivity across that

Paul Groth: I want to be able to assert floppy things, and then have transitivity across that [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:32:20 <jcheney> also, sparql 1.1 will have (hopefully not very broken) transitive queries

James Cheney: also, sparql 1.1 will have (hopefully not very broken) transitive queries

21:32:28 <TomDN> ... If that's possible with other things, that's fine

Tom De Nies: ... If that's possible with other things, that's fine

21:32:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:32:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:33:07 <TomDN> Khalid: To do that, we need to change the definition

Khalid Belhajjame: To do that, we need to change the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:33:08 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

21:33:30 <TomDN> @khalid can you put your definition on here?

Tom De Nies: @khalid can you put your definition on here?

21:33:33 <Luc> ack kha

Luc Moreau: ack kha

21:34:11 <satya> It is a bit difficult to hear on the phone - can they speak a bit louder thanks!

Satya Sahoo: It is a bit difficult to hear on the phone - can they speak a bit louder thanks!

21:34:22 <TomDN> jcheney: It sounded like the reason to have tracedTo was the transitivity, so we keep this, and throw away the rest

James Cheney: It sounded like the reason to have tracedTo was the transitivity, so we keep this, and throw away the rest [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:34:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:34:49 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

21:34:49 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case.  If there are use cases for attribution as well as

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as

21:34:52 <Zakim> ... derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.

Zakim IRC Bot: ... derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.

21:35:12 <tlebo> If we strip out agents in the tracedTo inferences, we'll then just do:    SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . OPTIONAL {  ?everything prov:wasAttributedTo ?who } }

Timothy Lebo: If we strip out agents in the tracedTo inferences, we'll then just do: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . OPTIONAL { ?everything prov:wasAttributedTo ?who } }

21:35:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:35:35 <TomDN> paolo: It's really a query language problem (as james just said), not a problem of the model itself

Paolo Missier: It's really a query language problem (as james just said), not a problem of the model itself [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:35:53 <jcheney> @tlebo good point, is there a strong motivation for having a single property naming this query?

James Cheney: @tlebo good point, is there a strong motivation for having a single property naming this query?

21:36:06 <TomDN> ... that's not a strong enough argument to have it in the model

Tom De Nies: ... that's not a strong enough argument to have it in the model

21:36:17 <tlebo> q+ to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.

21:36:22 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

21:36:29 <hook> SPARQL 1.1 supports http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: SPARQL 1.1 supports http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths

21:37:01 <TomDN> zednik: The current definition doesn't make it clear that we're interested in the transitivity

Stephan Zednik: The current definition doesn't make it clear that we're interested in the transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:37:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:37:46 <TomDN> ... will think about a new definition

Tom De Nies: ... will think about a new definition

21:37:56 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

21:38:07 <TomDN> Luc: We seem to have 2 different issues here.

Luc Moreau: We seem to have 2 different issues here. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:38:24 <TomDN> ... If we want it just for querying, we don;t need it in the model.

Tom De Nies: ... If we want it just for querying, we don;t need it in the model.

21:38:36 <TomDN> ... And if we want to assert it, we should have a better definition

Tom De Nies: ... And if we want to assert it, we should have a better definition

21:38:46 <TomDN> ... and make the delta with derivation clear

Tom De Nies: ... and make the delta with derivation clear

21:38:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:39:09 <TomDN> tlebo: the distinction is that tracedTo includes agents

Timothy Lebo: the distinction is that tracedTo includes agents [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:39:39 <TomDN> ... tracedTo allows you to get to every static fixed thing (as an activity-less view) about how you got to a certain entity

Tom De Nies: ... tracedTo allows you to get to every static fixed thing (as an activity-less view) about how you got to a certain entity

21:40:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:40:11 <Luc> ack tl

Luc Moreau: ack tl

21:40:11 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.

21:40:12 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

21:40:20 <khalidBelhajjame> The only argument for keeping tracedTo is the ability to express that an entity may have influenced the generation of another entity, without necessarily specifying the activitie(s) that were involved

Khalid Belhajjame: The only argument for keeping tracedTo is the ability to express that an entity may have influenced the generation of another entity, without necessarily specifying the activitie(s) that were involved

21:40:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:40:34 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:41:18 <TomDN> pgroth: I would include the notion of influence in the definition

Paul Groth: I would include the notion of influence in the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:41:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:41:57 <TomDN> ... but am not blocking

Tom De Nies: ... but am not blocking

21:41:58 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

21:42:16 <hook> q+

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: q+

21:42:26 <Luc> ack hoo

Luc Moreau: ack hoo

21:42:43 <TomDN> hook: couldnt you just use involvement

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: couldnt you just use involvement [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:43:13 <TomDN> Luc: it's not in the DM, but in the ontology, but it is a good point

Luc Moreau: it's not in the DM, but in the ontology, but it is a good point [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:43:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:43:33 <TomDN> hook: seems like tracedTo is redundant

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: seems like tracedTo is redundant [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:44:02 <TomDN> tlebo: So we would use something like "Involvement", without transitivity

Timothy Lebo: So we would use something like "Involvement", without transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:44:10 <TomDN> ... and drop tracedTo

Tom De Nies: ... and drop tracedTo

21:44:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:45:11 <TomDN> @tlebo: could you paste that in here please?

Tom De Nies: @tlebo: could you paste that in here please?

21:45:40 <tlebo> "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved."

Timothy Lebo: "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved."

21:45:45 <TomDN> tnx :)

Tom De Nies: tnx :)

21:45:57 <tlebo> prov\:involved prov:editorsDefinition "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved."  .

Timothy Lebo: prov\:involved prov:editorsDefinition "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved." .

21:47:00 <TomDN> tlebo: this is already a qualified relation in prov-o, so the work there is already done

Timothy Lebo: this is already a qualified relation in prov-o, so the work there is already done [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:47:19 <TomDN> Luc: so this would need to belong to one of the components in the DM

Luc Moreau: so this would need to belong to one of the components in the DM [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:47:50 <tlebo> "agents-responsibility"

Timothy Lebo: "agents-responsibility"

21:47:56 <tlebo> ^^ NO

Timothy Lebo: ^^ NO

21:48:07 <tlebo> entities-activities

Timothy Lebo: entities-activities

21:48:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

21:48:14 <tlebo> +100 to "entities-activities" :-)

Timothy Lebo: +100 to "entities-activities" :-)

21:48:15 <TomDN> pgroth: should we put this in further elements?

Paul Groth: should we put this in further elements? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:48:19 <tlebo> bummer

Timothy Lebo: bummer

21:48:25 <tlebo> -100 entities-activities

Timothy Lebo: -100 entities-activities

21:48:41 <TomDN> Luc: that would be a bit akward

Luc Moreau: that would be a bit akward [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:49:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

21:49:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:50:10 <TomDN> Luc: If people are satisfied with this resolution, that would be ok

Luc Moreau: If people are satisfied with this resolution, that would be ok [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:51:40 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and remove all related inferences (including transitivity)

PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and remove all related inferences (including transitivity)

21:52:22 <TomDN> jcheney: We would want to keep some rudamentary inferences

James Cheney: We would want to keep some rudamentary inferences [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:52:39 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

21:53:18 <hook> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#involved

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#involved

21:53:27 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

21:53:38 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

21:53:39 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

21:53:45 <Paolo> +1

+1

21:53:50 <khalidBelhajjame> +0.99

Khalid Belhajjame: +0.99

21:53:50 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

21:53:51 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

21:53:53 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

21:54:04 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

21:54:05 <Reza_BFar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

21:54:06 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

21:54:07 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

21:54:13 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

21:54:23 <Luc> accepted: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

RESOLVED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

21:55:10 <Reza_BFar> involvedWith?

Reza B'Far: involvedWith?

21:55:33 <TomDN> Luc: so what name will this beast have?

Luc Moreau: so what name will this beast have? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:55:45 <TomDN> tlebo; involved(bla1,bla2)

Tom De Nies: tlebo; involved(bla1,bla2)

21:55:46 <tlebo> "involved"

Timothy Lebo: "involved"

21:56:14 <TomDN> tlebo: involved(bla1,bla2)

Timothy Lebo: involved(bla1,bla2) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:56:22 <Reza_BFar> Question   \: is there a situation where the order\direction matters?

Reza B'Far: Question \: is there a situation where the order\direction matters?

21:56:37 <TomDN> khalid: is it symmetric then?

Khalid Belhajjame: is it symmetric then? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:56:45 <Reza_BFar> I don't think it is...

Reza B'Far: I don't think it is...

21:56:59 <TomDN> pgroth: no, we would look back into the past, right?

Paul Groth: no, we would look back into the past, right? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:57:39 <TomDN> jcheney: so how is it used in prov-o?

James Cheney: so how is it used in prov-o? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:57:48 <TomDN> Luc: it's recommended not to use it

Luc Moreau: it's recommended not to use it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:57:56 <TomDN> ... (discouraged)

Tom De Nies: ... (discouraged)

21:58:17 <TomDN> Luc: maybe wasInfluencedBy?

Luc Moreau: maybe wasInfluencedBy? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:58:34 <Curt> tracedto?

Curt Tilmes: tracedto?

21:58:36 <TomDN> khalid: that seems too strong

Khalid Belhajjame: that seems too strong [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:58:39 <Reza_BFar> I think there are 2 different situations: A and B are symmetrically involved -- they are involved together.  The other is A is involved with B, but B is not involved with A

Reza B'Far: I think there are 2 different situations: A and B are symmetrically involved -- they are involved together. The other is A is involved with B, but B is not involved with A

21:59:12 <TomDN> pgroth: +1 for influence

Paul Groth: +1 for influence [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:59:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:59:37 <TomDN> Curt: indeed, if there's no influence, it wouldnt be in the graph

Curt Tilmes: indeed, if there's no influence, it wouldnt be in the graph [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

21:59:54 <Reza_BFar> So, influencedBy is definitely not symmetric, right?

Reza B'Far: So, influencedBy is definitely not symmetric, right?

21:59:57 <Reza_BFar> just checking.

Reza B'Far: just checking.

22:00:01 <TomDN> tlebo: seems better indeed

Timothy Lebo: seems better indeed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:00:21 <TomDN> Luc: we would change this in the ontology aswell?

Luc Moreau: we would change this in the ontology aswell? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:00:24 <TomDN> tlebo: yes!

Timothy Lebo: yes! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:00:28 <TomDN> Luc: nice!

Luc Moreau: nice! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:00:41 <jcheney> influence (n): the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself

James Cheney: influence (n): the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself

22:00:47 <tlebo> prov\:involved -> prov:influenced && prov:Involvement -> prov:Influence

Timothy Lebo: prov\:involved -> prov:influenced && prov:Involvement -> prov:Influence

22:00:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:00:51 <pgroth> the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself:

Paul Groth: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself:

22:01:29 <TomDN> paulo: what about contribute?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: what about contribute? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:01:36 <TomDN> tlebo: too agent-like

Timothy Lebo: too agent-like [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:01:47 <khalidBelhajjame> affectedBy

Khalid Belhajjame: affectedBy

22:01:49 <TomDN> Luc: and  what would the term be then?

Luc Moreau: and what would the term be then? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:02:16 <TomDN> wasSomehowRelatedTo? ;)

Tom De Nies: wasSomehowRelatedTo? ;)

22:02:55 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

22:03:13 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

22:03:23 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

22:03:24 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

22:03:29 <Reza_BFar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

22:03:31 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

22:03:31 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

22:03:31 <Paolo> +1

+1

22:03:37 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

22:03:39 <jcheney> +1 (cf dictionary definition)

James Cheney: +1 (cf dictionary definition)

22:04:12 <TomDN> zednik: so generation is currently a subproperty of this

Stephan Zednik: so generation is currently a subproperty of this [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:04:27 <TomDN> everyone said yes

Tom De Nies: everyone said yes

22:06:31 <TomDN> tlebo: there's a conflict with this concept having some predefined order, and its subproperties (such as wasGeneratedBy)

Timothy Lebo: there's a conflict with this concept having some predefined order, and its subproperties (such as wasGeneratedBy) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:07:25 <Reza_BFar> +1 with Luc

Reza B'Far: +1 with Luc

22:07:28 <TomDN> Luc: you would have wasGeneratedBy and generated

Luc Moreau: you would have wasGeneratedBy and generated [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

22:07:34 <TomDN> ... So that resolves it

Tom De Nies: ... So that resolves it

22:07:40 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

22:07:43 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

22:07:54 <Luc> accepted: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

RESOLVED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)

22:08:08 <tlebo> (consequence: we need wasInfluencedBy with inverse influenced)

Timothy Lebo: (consequence: we need wasInfluencedBy with inverse influenced)

22:08:54 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

22:09:09 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

22:09:10 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo

22:24:50 <Luc> q?

(No events recorded for 15 minutes)

Luc Moreau: q?

22:26:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:27:47 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started

22:27:54 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa

22:29:30 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-value

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-value

22:29:41 <pgroth> subtopic: data types

4.3. data types

Summary: PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.

<pgroth> Summary: PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.
22:30:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: section 5.7.3 of the data model - describes possible attribute value pairs

Luc Moreau: section 5.7.3 of the data model - describes possible attribute value pairs [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:30:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: this section matters for interop; we don't want to re-invent the wheel

Luc Moreau: this section matters for interop; we don't want to re-invent the wheel [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:31:11 <CraigTrim> Luc: RDF WG is still in the process of defining types they will support

Luc Moreau: RDF WG is still in the process of defining types they will support [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:31:36 <CraigTrim> Luc: although we want RDF compatible types but how do we phrase this in such a way that if RDF spec changes, we don't have to change our specs too?

Luc Moreau: although we want RDF compatible types but how do we phrase this in such a way that if RDF spec changes, we don't have to change our specs too? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:32:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:32:37 <CraigTrim> Luc: Are we happy with the phrasing in this section and should we keep this table of data types?

Luc Moreau: Are we happy with the phrasing in this section and should we keep this table of data types? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:32:47 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

22:33:20 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:33:26 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

22:33:30 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

22:34:09 <CraigTrim> tlebo: in RDF 1.1 it wasn't about just adding data types, also involved deprecating some of the types.

Timothy Lebo: in RDF 1.1 it wasn't about just adding data types, also involved deprecating some of the types. [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:34:32 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

22:34:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:34:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: This table comes from RDF WG

Luc Moreau: This table comes from RDF WG [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:34:49 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

22:35:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "PROV accepts the RDF-Compatible XSD types that RDF enumerates in its own specification" does this mean we limit ourselves to XSD datatypes?

Paul Groth: "PROV accepts the RDF-Compatible XSD types that RDF enumerates in its own specification" does this mean we limit ourselves to XSD datatypes? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:35:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in the chart (Table 8: Informative List of PROV-DM Data Types) we have RDF defined datatypes

Paul Groth: in the chart (Table 8: Informative List of PROV-DM Data Types) we have RDF defined datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:35:54 <CraigTrim> pgroth: need to re-phrase that PROV accepts datatypes from RDF spec

Paul Groth: need to re-phrase that PROV accepts datatypes from RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:36:11 <CraigTrim> Luc: If you go back to 3 bullet points above we say use of full data types is recommended

Luc Moreau: If you go back to 3 bullet points above we say use of full data types is recommended [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:36:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:36:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

22:37:02 <CraigTrim> pgroth: suggest if we follow what RDF does in selecting datatypes, we should just say that

Paul Groth: suggest if we follow what RDF does in selecting datatypes, we should just say that [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:37:34 <CraigTrim> pgroth: We are following the RDF spec directly, not selectively choosing from the RDF spec

Paul Groth: We are following the RDF spec directly, not selectively choosing from the RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:39:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: suggest adding forwarding pointer to something that is not finalized yet

Paul Groth: suggest adding forwarding pointer to something that is not finalized yet [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:40:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: standard W3C layer is that we point to RDF 1.0 datatypes and then we re-open WG and re-go-through-some-procedure.  We can avoid this by being vague, but this vagueness could affect the spec

Paul Groth: standard W3C layer is that we point to RDF 1.0 datatypes and then we re-open WG and re-go-through-some-procedure. We can avoid this by being vague, but this vagueness could affect the spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:41:10 <CraigTrim> Luc: are all these types supported in the PROV-O?

Luc Moreau: are all these types supported in the PROV-O? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:41:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:42:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: In the data types section there is a notion of data type maps - is this relevant to us?

Luc Moreau: In the data types section there is a notion of data type maps - is this relevant to us? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:42:36 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes

22:45:17 <CraigTrim> Luc: How is i18n supported in XML for strings?

Luc Moreau: How is i18n supported in XML for strings? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:45:20 <tlebo> "A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document"

Timothy Lebo: "A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document"

22:45:28 <tlebo> 2.12 Language Identification

Timothy Lebo: 2.12 Language Identification

22:45:41 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/

22:45:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: you can put xml:lang on any element and leverage inheritance

Paul Groth: you can put xml:lang on any element and leverage inheritance [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:46:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

22:46:36 <CraigTrim> pgroth: proposal is to be completely dependent on RDF datatypes w/no exceptions.

Paul Groth: proposal is to be completely dependent on RDF datatypes w/no exceptions. [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:47:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we might have informative content in our document and recommended content in RDF spec

Paul Groth: we might have informative content in our document and recommended content in RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:49:34 <CraigTrim> tlebo: we only use common datatypes (URL, int, string, dateTime) in examples, so change should not impact us

Timothy Lebo: we only use common datatypes (URL, int, string, dateTime) in examples, so change should not impact us [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:49:48 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in favour of removing whole table

Paul Groth: in favour of removing whole table [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:50:03 <CraigTrim> Curt: hot link into other document - if people want to see it, they can see it

Curt Tilmes: hot link into other document - if people want to see it, they can see it [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:51:28 <reza_bfar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

22:51:30 <CraigTrim> Dong: second that we link into spec - interopt is key

Trung Huynh: second that we link into spec - interopt is key [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:51:56 <reza_bfar> I prefer static dependencies over dynamic dependencies, but if Ivan says we can't do that, then it is what it is.

Reza B'Far: I prefer static dependencies over dynamic dependencies, but if Ivan says we can't do that, then it is what it is.

22:52:09 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar

Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar

22:52:15 <CraigTrim> reza_bfar: from software pov we don't want dynamic dependencies

Reza B'Far: from software pov we don't want dynamic dependencies [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:52:57 <CraigTrim> pgroth: seems to be consensus that we prefer linking to specific datatype doc that already exists

Paul Groth: seems to be consensus that we prefer linking to specific datatype doc that already exists [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:53:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we should go back to Ivan and work out a process with RDF wg

Paul Groth: we should go back to Ivan and work out a process with RDF wg [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:54:01 <reza_bfar> +q

Reza B'Far: +q

22:54:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Ivan prefers not to change any document after it becomes a rec (a new charter is needed even for minor changes)

Paul Groth: Ivan prefers not to change any document after it becomes a rec (a new charter is needed even for minor changes) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:54:52 <reza_bfar> Isn't RDF 1.1 going to be backwards compatible to 1.0?

Reza B'Far: Isn't RDF 1.1 going to be backwards compatible to 1.0?

22:55:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: there will be more types supported in 1.1

Luc Moreau: there will be more types supported in 1.1 [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:55:42 <CraigTrim> tlebo: they have also discussed deprecating existing types

Timothy Lebo: they have also discussed deprecating existing types [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:56:10 <reza_bfar> I guess it all depends on what deprecation means.

Reza B'Far: I guess it all depends on what deprecation means.

22:56:25 <reza_bfar> If it means that it's indefinitely deprecated, but included, then we still don't have an issue.

Reza B'Far: If it means that it's indefinitely deprecated, but included, then we still don't have an issue.

22:56:32 <CraigTrim> Luc: suggest we endorse recommendation that PROV should support all types in concrete version of RDF

Luc Moreau: suggest we endorse recommendation that PROV should support all types in concrete version of RDF [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

22:56:36 <reza_bfar> but if it means that it's in preparation for future exclusion, then there is a problem

Reza B'Far: but if it means that it's in preparation for future exclusion, then there is a problem

22:56:36 <pgroth> proposed: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF

PROPOSED: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF

22:56:40 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

22:56:44 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

22:56:46 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

22:56:46 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

22:56:48 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

22:56:49 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

22:56:49 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

22:56:52 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

22:57:05 <pgroth> accepted: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF

RESOLVED: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF

22:57:18 <pgroth> proposed: remove table 8 from prov-dm

PROPOSED: remove table 8 from prov-dm

22:57:20 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

22:57:21 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

22:57:23 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

22:57:23 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

22:57:25 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

22:57:25 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

22:57:27 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

22:57:27 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

22:57:27 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

22:57:29 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

22:57:36 <pgroth> accepted: remove table 8 from prov-dm

RESOLVED: remove table 8 from prov-dm

22:58:55 <pgroth> action: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications?

ACTION: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications?

22:58:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-29].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-93 - Look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-29].

22:59:31 <pgroth> subtopic: incompatibility prov-dm and prov-o and moving to last call

4.4. incompatibility prov-dm and prov-o and moving to last call

Summary: Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.

<pgroth> Summary: Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.
23:00:14 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-location

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-location

23:00:45 <tlebo> "The attribute prov:location is an optional attribute of entity, activity, usage, and generation."

Timothy Lebo: "The attribute prov:location is an optional attribute of entity, activity, usage, and generation."

23:01:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: how do we reconcile PROV-O and PROV-DM here

Luc Moreau: how do we reconcile PROV-O and PROV-DM here [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:01:25 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components

23:01:53 <CraigTrim> Luc: look at overview table 4 in section 5 - supported relations are indicated

Luc Moreau: look at overview table 4 in section 5 - supported relations are indicated [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:02:26 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:02:39 <reza_bfar> -q

Reza B'Far: -q

23:02:40 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar

Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar

23:02:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: not sure why have location on ActedOnBehalfOf and WasAttributedTo

Luc Moreau: not sure why have location on ActedOnBehalfOf and WasAttributedTo [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:02:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:02:59 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

23:03:06 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

23:04:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I was associated with PROV F2F mtg in SB vs someone in Ohio - so location we are associated with is different

Paul Groth: I was associated with PROV F2F mtg in SB vs someone in Ohio - so location we are associated with is different [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:04:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

23:04:48 <CraigTrim> tlebo: PROV-O has open domain for atLocation

Timothy Lebo: PROV-O has open domain for atLocation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:05:54 <CraigTrim> tlebo: preferred to leave open to avoid actively excluding, but closing with union may be tidy

Timothy Lebo: preferred to leave open to avoid actively excluding, but closing with union may be tidy [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:06:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:06:07 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

23:06:54 <reza_bfar> I agree with Tim there.  Extending ontologies is supposed to be for further specialization not generalization

Reza B'Far: I agree with Tim there. Extending ontologies is supposed to be for further specialization not generalization

23:06:55 <CraigTrim> tlebo: seems odd for interopt effort to not take broader approach

Timothy Lebo: seems odd for interopt effort to not take broader approach [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:07:01 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:08:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: reason to constrain Ontology is to give enriched semantics

Paul Groth: reason to constrain Ontology is to give enriched semantics [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:08:54 <CraigTrim> pgroth: to constrain doesn't seem to help interopt in this case because we gain no enriched semantics

Paul Groth: to constrain doesn't seem to help interopt in this case because we gain no enriched semantics [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:10:03 <CraigTrim> tlebo: is there a popular vocabulary that gives location?

Timothy Lebo: is there a popular vocabulary that gives location? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:10:21 <CraigTrim> pgroth: yes, but only for particular kinds of location

Paul Groth: yes, but only for particular kinds of location [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:11:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: just put location on classes in model (location on entity, agent, activity) or open up completely (including qualified relations)

Paul Groth: just put location on classes in model (location on entity, agent, activity) or open up completely (including qualified relations) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:11:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: alt is to pick and choose relations

Paul Groth: alt is to pick and choose relations [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:11:55 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:12:31 <CraigTrim> tlebo: alt set domain of atLocation to top level of all our classes

Timothy Lebo: alt set domain of atLocation to top level of all our classes [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:13:03 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

23:13:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:13:11 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

23:13:43 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

23:14:16 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

23:15:00 <CraigTrim> zednik: suggest agent entity activity and instantaneous event

Stephan Zednik: suggest agent entity activity and instantaneous event [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:15:31 <CraigTrim> tlebo: union of these four is domain of atLocatoin

Timothy Lebo: union of these four is domain of atLocatoin [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:15:51 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in order to say locatoin of agent, you have to make agent an entity?

Paul Groth: in order to say locatoin of agent, you have to make agent an entity? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:15:54 <CraigTrim> tlebo: yes...

Timothy Lebo: yes... [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:16:37 <CraigTrim> pgroth: not just a map; every kind of location

Paul Groth: not just a map; every kind of location [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:17:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: what does this leave out?

Paul Groth: what does this leave out? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:17:57 <pgroth> proposed: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event

PROPOSED: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event

23:18:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so we can't say "was derived from at activity"

Paul Groth: so we can't say "was derived from at activity" [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:18:08 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

23:18:08 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

23:18:08 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

23:18:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

23:18:11 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

23:18:12 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

23:18:12 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

23:18:12 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

23:18:15 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

23:18:19 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

23:18:32 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

23:18:38 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

23:18:38 <Paolo> +1

+1

23:18:46 <pgroth> accepted: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event

RESOLVED: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event

23:19:03 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

23:19:58 <CraigTrim> Luc: in terms of reconciling PROV-DM and PROV-O - properties of atLocation

Luc Moreau: in terms of reconciling PROV-DM and PROV-O - properties of atLocation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:21:46 <Curt> I am not my name

Curt Tilmes: I am not my name

23:22:35 <CraigTrim> pgroth: any other issues on PROV-DM? bring up now ...

Paul Groth: any other issues on PROV-DM? bring up now ... [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:22:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:22:53 <satya> sorry, I have to leave now - will join in tomorrow

Satya Sahoo: sorry, I have to leave now - will join in tomorrow

<pgroth> Topic: Last Call Straw Poll

5. Last Call Straw Poll

Summary: The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.

<pgroth> Summary: The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.
23:23:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: can't vote on going to last call right now, but prefer straw poll given decisions made today on various technical issues will we move to last call once these are implemented?

Paul Groth: can't vote on going to last call right now, but prefer straw poll given decisions made today on various technical issues will we move to last call once these are implemented? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:23:22 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

23:24:14 <pgroth> straw poll: move to last call if all resolutions on the listed technical issues identified at F2F3 are implemented

Paul Groth: straw poll: move to last call if all resolutions on the listed technical issues identified at F2F3 are implemented

23:24:21 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

23:24:22 <reza_bfar> +1

Reza B'Far: +1

23:24:22 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

23:24:25 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

23:24:25 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

23:24:25 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

23:24:27 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

23:24:29 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

23:24:37 <jcheney> q+ to ask about where we left ctx'n

James Cheney: q+ to ask about where we left ctx'n

23:24:42 <Paolo> I agree!

I agree!

23:25:03 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

23:25:10 <CraigTrim> jcheney: was ctx'n left at renaming and change to definition?

James Cheney: was ctx'n left at renaming and change to definition? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:25:16 <CraigTrim> pgroth: confirmed, plus marking as at risk

Paul Groth: confirmed, plus marking as at risk [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:26:48 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O

6. PROV-O

Summary: The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.
23:26:51 <CraigTrim> Luc: what do we need to do to get to last call on PROV-O?

Luc Moreau: what do we need to do to get to last call on PROV-O? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:27:07 <CraigTrim> tlebo: will release a document for internal review

Timothy Lebo: will release a document for internal review [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:27:47 <CraigTrim> tlebo: work up to yesterday's deadline was making modifications to Ontology for ctx'n and back-checking all examples to fill in re-names

Timothy Lebo: work up to yesterday's deadline was making modifications to Ontology for ctx'n and back-checking all examples to fill in re-names [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:28:22 <CraigTrim> tlebo: the narrative hasn't moved, couple issues to incorporate - principally fixing DM moves progress on PROV-O

Timothy Lebo: the narrative hasn't moved, couple issues to incorporate - principally fixing DM moves progress on PROV-O [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:28:37 <CraigTrim> tlebo: beyond that making sure constructs (terms) are discussed within narrative

Timothy Lebo: beyond that making sure constructs (terms) are discussed within narrative [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:28:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:28:47 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

23:28:47 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask about where we left ctx'n

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask about where we left ctx'n

23:29:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have agreed on number of changes in DM today which will be added back into Ontology

Luc Moreau: we have agreed on number of changes in DM today which will be added back into Ontology [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:29:48 <jcheney> q+ to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)

James Cheney: q+ to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)

23:30:04 <CraigTrim> tlebo: timetable is July 13th

Timothy Lebo: timetable is July 13th [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:31:48 <CraigTrim> Luc: can we add additional resources to expedite timetable

Luc Moreau: can we add additional resources to expedite timetable [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:32:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: July 13th as internal release date compresses remaining timeframe

Luc Moreau: July 13th as internal release date compresses remaining timeframe [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:32:40 <CraigTrim> Luc: We want sync'd release of PROV-DM and PROV-O

Luc Moreau: We want sync'd release of PROV-DM and PROV-O [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:32:52 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

23:33:06 <CraigTrim> jcheney: how much work remains?

Stephan Zednik: how much work remains? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:33:19 <jcheney> That's not me :)

James Cheney: That's not me :)

23:33:28 <jcheney> (it's zednik)

James Cheney: (it's zednik)

23:33:32 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim: my bad

Craig Trim: my bad [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:33:49 <pgroth> s/jcheney/zednik/
23:34:10 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:34:33 <CraigTrim> tlebo: todo list is number of constructs in Ontology, and if construct is not mentioned in narrative, it is remaining work

Timothy Lebo: todo list is number of constructs in Ontology, and if construct is not mentioned in narrative, it is remaining work [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:34:44 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

23:34:44 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)

23:36:17 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we can go to last call with less than polished narrative as long as Ontology is fixed

Paul Groth: we can go to last call with less than polished narrative as long as Ontology is fixed [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:36:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: when can we get a fixed Ontology and who will help with narrative

Paul Groth: when can we get a fixed Ontology and who will help with narrative [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:36:45 <CraigTrim> pgroth: but if Ontology is done and narrative lags, we should keep moving ahead

Paul Groth: but if Ontology is done and narrative lags, we should keep moving ahead [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:37:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:37:11 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

23:37:13 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

23:37:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: are there volunteers to work with tlebo?

Luc Moreau: are there volunteers to work with tlebo? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:38:01 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

23:38:45 <zednik> I can work with Tim on prov-o

Stephan Zednik: I can work with Tim on prov-o

23:39:37 <CraigTrim> Luc: if parties that can contribute time specify when we can work out timetable based on availability

Luc Moreau: if parties that can contribute time specify when we can work out timetable based on availability [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:41:55 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:42:14 <CraigTrim> Luc: anything else we can discuss about PROV-O in order to get to last call?

Luc Moreau: anything else we can discuss about PROV-O in order to get to last call? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:42:49 <CraigTrim> tlebo: one aspect not personally focused on is property type (irreflexive, functional, etc)

Timothy Lebo: one aspect not personally focused on is property type (irreflexive, functional, etc) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:43:18 <CraigTrim> tlebo: concerned about some constraints documents but no specific examples to raise

Timothy Lebo: concerned about some constraints documents but no specific examples to raise [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:46:39 <Luc> q+ to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance

Luc Moreau: q+ to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance

23:48:29 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

23:48:35 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

23:48:35 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, you wanted to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance

23:49:45 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:49:51 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q-

23:49:53 <CraigTrim> pgroth: constraints can be implemented in a variety of methods, but Ontology should remain scruffy

Paul Groth: constraints can be implemented in a variety of methods, but Ontology should remain scruffy [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:49:58 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

23:50:24 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

23:50:28 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze

23:50:34 <CraigTrim> zednik: are constraints part of recommendation?

Stephan Zednik: are constraints part of recommendation? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:50:42 <CraigTrim> Luc: forms a separate recommendation

Luc Moreau: forms a separate recommendation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:51:05 <jcheney> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#compliance

James Cheney: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#compliance

23:51:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: eg. "in order to validate PROV the following constraints should be satisfied..."

Luc Moreau: eg. "in order to validate PROV the following constraints should be satisfied..." [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:51:41 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

23:52:19 <CraigTrim> jcheney: several reviewers have noted document lacked clarity in past around compliance w/respect to constraints

James Cheney: several reviewers have noted document lacked clarity in past around compliance w/respect to constraints [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:52:27 <Luc> ack pau

Luc Moreau: ack pau

23:55:21 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

23:57:19 <CraigTrim> Luc: is it a resolution of this meeting that the constraints should not be put in the ontology?

Luc Moreau: is it a resolution of this meeting that the constraints should not be put in the ontology? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:57:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:57:28 <CraigTrim> tlebo: does that include the subProperty hierarchy?

Timothy Lebo: does that include the subProperty hierarchy? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:57:30 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

23:57:34 <Luc> ack pau

Luc Moreau: ack pau

23:58:40 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

23:58:44 <CraigTrim> Paulo: we want to make sure people have certain level of correctness when generating PROV

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we want to make sure people have certain level of correctness when generating PROV [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:58:54 <tlebo> q+ to ask if prov-o loses its subproperty hierarchy in b/c of a strict "DM-only, no prov-constraints!" encoding.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask if prov-o loses its subproperty hierarchy in b/c of a strict "DM-only, no prov-constraints!" encoding.

23:58:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

23:59:11 <CraigTrim> Paulo: don't think we can provide PROV validator, but should have some level of syntax checking

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: don't think we can provide PROV validator, but should have some level of syntax checking [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:59:29 <CraigTrim> jcheney: no point in standardizing something that is non-decidable

James Cheney: no point in standardizing something that is non-decidable [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

23:59:55 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:01:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:01:24 <Paolo> q?

q?

00:01:29 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

00:01:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: maintain subProperty hierarchy in PROV-O since it exists in DM

Paul Groth: maintain subProperty hierarchy in PROV-O since it exists in DM [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ]

00:01:55 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

00:02:07 <Luc> q/

Luc Moreau: q/

00:02:09 <Luc> Q?

Luc Moreau: Q?

00:02:15 <TomDN> q-

Tom De Nies: q-

00:02:15 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

00:03:05 <Luc> proposed: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology

PROPOSED: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology

00:03:10 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

00:03:12 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

00:03:14 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

00:03:17 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

00:03:18 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

00:03:19 <dcorsar_> +1

David Corsar: +1

00:03:19 <Paolo> +1

+1

00:03:26 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

00:03:31 <tlebo> +.98

Timothy Lebo: +.98

00:03:32 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

00:04:00 <Luc> accepted: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology

RESOLVED: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology

00:04:35 <Paulo> q?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q?

00:05:07 <Curt> I would word it "It should be possible to express anything compliant with the DM using the ontology"

Curt Tilmes: I would word it "It should be possible to express anything compliant with the DM using the ontology"

00:05:19 <pgroth> +1 for curt

Paul Groth: +1 for curt

00:05:31 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

00:05:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:06:01 <TomDN> That's exactly what makes it a nice line between syntactic validity and "semantic" validity

Tom De Nies: That's exactly what makes it a nice line between syntactic validity and "semantic" validity

00:06:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:06:22 <TomDN> (or "constrained" validity, whatever)

Tom De Nies: (or "constrained" validity, whatever)

00:06:29 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

00:06:56 <jcheney> Since the constraints & inferences are still allowed/encouraged, in a REC, I don't think we lose anything here - just observe that there is an instance of PROV-O that bakes them in

James Cheney: Since the constraints & inferences are still allowed/encouraged, in a REC, I don't think we lose anything here - just observe that there is an instance of PROV-O that bakes them in

00:07:11 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

00:07:42 <Curt> (keep a CM tag for the version of the .owl just prior to removing all the constraints)

Curt Tilmes: (keep a CM tag for the version of the .owl just prior to removing all the constraints)

00:08:59 <TomDN> topic: PROV-N

7. PROV-N

Summary: The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.

<pgroth> Summary: The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.
00:10:06 <Paolo> q+ to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation

q+ to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation

00:10:12 <TomDN> Paulo: about PROV-CONSTRAINTS: could we have a notion of "well-formed"-ness

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: about PROV-CONSTRAINTS: could we have a notion of "well-formed"-ness [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:10:18 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

00:10:23 <TomDN> Luc: Back to PROV-N: any issues?

Luc Moreau: Back to PROV-N: any issues? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:10:29 <Luc> ack pau

Luc Moreau: ack pau

00:10:40 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

00:10:40 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation

Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation

00:11:33 <TomDN> pg: for internationalization: we can go to LC, and ask internationalization responsibles if it's allright

Paul Groth: for internationalization: we can go to LC, and ask internationalization responsibles if it's allright [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:11:51 <TomDN> ... or how we can do it

Tom De Nies: ... or how we can do it

00:12:01 <pgroth> action: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N

ACTION: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N

00:12:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-30].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-94 - Check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-30].

00:12:17 <TomDN> Luc: In an earlier version there was a language tag over Strings, and it was removed

Luc Moreau: In an earlier version there was a language tag over Strings, and it was removed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:12:27 <TomDN> ... Any technical issues?

Tom De Nies: ... Any technical issues?

00:12:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:12:47 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

00:13:02 <TomDN> Luc: There is an issue for LC, that a MIMETYPE is used, a request needs to be put in

Luc Moreau: There is an issue for LC, that if a MIMETYPE is used, a request needs to be put in [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:13:20 <TomDN> s/a MIMETYPE/if a MIMETYPE
00:13:46 <TomDN> Luc: 1st question: is the group fine with a MIMETYPE in PROV-N?

Luc Moreau: 1st question: is the group fine with a MIMETYPE in PROV-N? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:13:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:13:56 <TomDN> Luc: 2nd question: are we happy with the name?

Luc Moreau: 2nd question: are we happy with the name? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:14:06 <pgroth> text/prov-n

Paul Groth: text/prov-n

00:14:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:14:52 <jcheney> q+ to ask why not text/prov

James Cheney: q+ to ask why not text/prov

00:15:00 <TomDN> tlebo: we're already covered for RDF types (existing stuff out there)

Timothy Lebo: we're already covered for RDF types (existing stuff out there) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:15:18 <TomDN> jcheney: why not text/prov ?

James Cheney: why not text/prov ? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:15:38 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

00:15:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:15:40 <hook> q+

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: q+

00:15:42 <TomDN> ... It automatically maps to prov-n

Tom De Nies: ... It automatically maps to prov-n

00:15:44 <Luc> ack jche

Luc Moreau: ack jche

00:15:44 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask why not text/prov

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask why not text/prov

00:16:00 <TomDN> tlebo: recommend keeping the n

Timothy Lebo: recommend keeping the n [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:16:16 <TomDN> ... because of the various ways to specify provenance

Tom De Nies: ... because of the various ways to specify provenance

00:16:18 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

00:16:23 <Luc> ack tl

Luc Moreau: ack tl

00:16:24 <TomDN> +1 tlebo

Tom De Nies: +1 tlebo

00:16:34 <TomDN> hook: +1  tlebo

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: +1 tlebo [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:16:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:16:57 <TomDN> ... imagine prov-json etc

Tom De Nies: ... imagine prov-json etc

00:17:01 <Luc> ack hoo

Luc Moreau: ack hoo

00:17:12 <TomDN> jcheney: I planned for this! hahah!

James Cheney: I planned for this! hahah! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:17:24 <TomDN> ... (and you matched my expectations)

Tom De Nies: ... (and you matched my expectations)

00:17:37 <Luc> accepted: mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n

RESOLVED: mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n

00:18:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:18:12 <TomDN> Topic: PROV-CONSTRAINTS

8. PROV-CONSTRAINTS

Summary: James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.

<pgroth> Summary: James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.
00:18:20 <hook> text/prov-{textual encoding scheme}

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'hook' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Hook Hua Hook Hua . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown hook: text/prov-{textual encoding scheme}

00:18:37 <TomDN> Luc: coming back to the compliance section

Luc Moreau: coming back to the compliance section [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:19:08 <Dong> @hook the MIME type for JSON is application/json

Trung Huynh: @hook the MIME type for JSON is application/json

00:19:13 <TomDN> jcheney: We need a clear idea whether there is consensus if something like what we have now is acceptable

James Cheney: We need a clear idea whether there is consensus if something like what we have now is acceptable [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:19:53 <Dong> @hook I don't think we should have new MIME types for XML, JSON, and RDF

Trung Huynh: @hook I don't think we should have new MIME types for XML, JSON, and RDF

00:20:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:20:15 <TomDN> ... so maybe more people should read it

Tom De Nies: ... so maybe more people should read it

00:20:36 <tlebo> @dong (is there a mimetype for xml?)

Timothy Lebo: @dong (is there a mimetype for xml?)

00:21:14 <pgroth> q+ to say what constraints doc is important for

Paul Groth: q+ to say what constraints doc is important for

00:21:24 <TomDN> ... To respond to Paulo's question (is it feasible to check validity?): we shouldn't include anything that's impossible to check computationally

Tom De Nies: ... To respond to Paulo's question (is it feasible to check validity?): we shouldn't include anything that's impossible to check computationally

00:21:24 <Dong> tlebo: I thought it was application/xml

Timothy Lebo: I thought it was application/xml [ Scribe Assist by Trung Huynh ]

00:21:36 <Curt> prov-json is more specific (more tightly defined) than application/json e.g.

Curt Tilmes: prov-json is more specific (more tightly defined) than application/json e.g.

00:21:42 <TomDN> ... So nothing undecidable

Tom De Nies: ... So nothing undecidable

00:21:48 <tlebo> @dong, ya. application/xml

Timothy Lebo: @dong, ya. application/xml

00:22:21 <TomDN> ... I've tried to organize things in terms of inferences and definitions you can comply with

Tom De Nies: ... I've tried to organize things in terms of inferences and definitions you can comply with

00:22:40 <TomDN> ... We still need to specify what to do with optional arguments

Tom De Nies: ... We still need to specify what to do with optional arguments

00:22:55 <TomDN> ... We may want uniqueness constraints.

Tom De Nies: ... We may want uniqueness constraints.

00:23:20 <zednik> @Don, tlebo: application/xml and text/xml

Stephan Zednik: @Dong, tlebo: application/xml and text/xml

00:23:21 <zednik> s/Don/Dong
00:23:34 <TomDN> ... We also want to be able to say that some things are not allowed. (like cycles and stuff)

Tom De Nies: ... We also want to be able to say that some things are not allowed. (like cycles and stuff)

00:24:27 <TomDN> ... We also might want some normalization in there

Tom De Nies: ... We also might want some normalization in there

00:24:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:24:47 <TomDN> ... So there are both technical and representation issues remaining.

Tom De Nies: ... So there are both technical and representation issues remaining.

00:25:06 <TomDN> Paulo: Are the PROV- documents intended to be distributed?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Are the provenance descriptions intended to be distributed? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:25:42 <TomDN> s/documents/descriptions
00:25:53 <TomDN> s/PROV-/provenance
00:25:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:26:25 <TomDN> jcheney: yes, but it's up to the asserter to specify this

James Cheney: yes, but it's up to the asserter to specify this [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:26:31 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aaaa

00:26:32 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended

00:26:32 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo

00:26:37 <tlebo> @jcheney, as it should be "it's up to the reader to decide" what circumscribes the assertions.

Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, as it should be "it's up to the reader to decide" what circumscribes the assertions.

00:26:45 <tlebo> +1 @jcheney

Timothy Lebo: +1 @jcheney

00:26:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:26:58 <TomDN> Paolo: it's basicly validating a set of assertions, regardless of where they are

Paolo Missier: it's basicly validating a set of assertions, regardless of where they are [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:27:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:27:28 <TomDN> pg: We addressed the distributed validation pretty well with validators in the Semantic Wev

Paul Groth: We addressed the distributed validation pretty well with validators in the Semantic Web [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:27:32 <TomDN> s/Wev/Web
00:27:51 <TomDN> pg: This document is very important for building a validator

Paul Groth: This document is very important for building a validator [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:28:08 <jcheney> Can we collect the feedback from developers somewhere?

James Cheney: Can we collect the feedback from developers somewhere?

00:28:23 <TomDN> ... it's part of the compromise of scruffiness

Tom De Nies: ... it's part of the compromise of scruffiness

00:28:29 <TomDN> ... to have a validator

Tom De Nies: ... to have a validator

00:28:36 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

00:28:50 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

00:28:58 <Dong> +1 to validator

Trung Huynh: +1 to validator

00:29:22 <Dong> q+

Trung Huynh: q+

00:29:26 <Luc> ack to

Luc Moreau: ack to

00:29:33 <jcheney> As I unerstand it there will have to be implementations of validation for the prov-constraints to proceed on REC track

James Cheney: As I unerstand it there will have to be implementations of validation for the prov-constraints to proceed on REC track

00:29:49 <pgroth> but they work - good enough

Paul Groth: but they work - good enough

00:29:49 <TomDN> tomdn: So that corresponds to what Luc said before, a validator is one of the implementations we really want to have

Tom De Nies: So that corresponds to what Luc said before, a validator is one of the implementations we really want to have [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:30:00 <TomDN> ,,, and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that

Tom De Nies: ,,, and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that

00:30:04 <Paolo> q+

q+

00:30:10 <TomDN> ... and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that

Tom De Nies: ... and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that

00:30:18 <Luc> ack pau

Luc Moreau: ack pau

00:30:32 <TomDN> ... so everything should be computable (cfr. jcheney)

Tom De Nies: ... so everything should be computable (cfr. jcheney)

00:30:45 <pgroth> something like http://inspector.sindice.com/

Paul Groth: something like http://inspector.sindice.com/

00:30:57 <tlebo> @paulo, not enough prior art for us to standardize. You're expressing practical concerns that are application-specific, which we can't help as a WG.

Timothy Lebo: @paulo, not enough prior art for us to standardize. You're expressing practical concerns that are application-specific, which we can't help as a WG.

00:31:04 <TomDN> Paulo: we can't impose a closed world assumption

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we can't impose a closed world assumption [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:31:10 <Luc> ack do

Luc Moreau: ack do

00:31:39 <TomDN> dong: I like the idea of the 2 levels of compliance, syntactic and "semantically"valid

Trung Huynh: I like the idea of the 2 levels of compliance, syntactic and "semantically"valid [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:31:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:32:19 <pgroth> ack paolo

Paul Groth: ack paolo

00:32:21 <TomDN> kind of like HTML strict, right?

Tom De Nies: kind of like HTML strict, right?

00:32:22 <jcheney> Just to be clear, curently VALID means "satisfies all constraints"

James Cheney: Just to be clear, curently VALID means "satisfies all constraints"

00:32:31 <TomDN> (kind of)

Tom De Nies: (kind of)

00:33:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:33:03 <tlebo> +1 @paolo "distribution is a secondary problem" that distracts from a validator.

Timothy Lebo: +1 @paolo "distribution is a secondary problem" that distracts from a validator.

00:33:23 <TomDN> paolo: There's a good basis for this validation (ignoring the distribution issues), combined with what's out there

Paolo Missier: There's a good basis for this validation (ignoring the distribution issues), combined with what's out there [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:33:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:33:30 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

00:33:33 <Paulo> coonstraints and best practices may be co-designed

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: coonstraints and best practices may be co-designed

00:34:24 <TomDN> Luc: So I don't see technical objections raised against the compliance section, except maybe the 2 levels of validation

Luc Moreau: So I don't see technical objections raised against the compliance section, except maybe the 2 levels of validation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:34:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:34:54 <TomDN> jcheney: agreed

James Cheney: agreed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:34:55 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

00:35:17 <Curt> I would call the levels "DM compliant" and "CONSTRAINTS compliant"

Curt Tilmes: I would call the levels "DM compliant" and "CONSTRAINTS compliant"

00:35:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:35:34 <TomDN> pg: I think it's fine to say there's only one level of validity, but that the validator has levels of response

Paul Groth: I think it's fine to say there's only one level of validity, but that the validator has levels of response [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:35:37 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

00:36:01 <TomDN> ... it's up to implementer of the validator, not to us

Tom De Nies: ... it's up to implementer of the validator, not to us

00:36:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:36:15 <TomDN> jcheney: agreed

James Cheney: agreed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:36:37 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

00:36:40 <Luc> ack pau

Luc Moreau: ack pau

00:36:49 <Paolo> q+

q+

00:37:13 <TomDN> Paulo: Validating everything at once is very hard, but smaller parts might be feasible

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Validating everything at once is very hard, but smaller parts might be feasible [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:37:35 <Luc> ack cu

Luc Moreau: ack cu

00:37:36 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

00:37:49 <TomDN> Curt: I would define the levels of compliance with DM and CONSTRAINTS separatly

Curt Tilmes: I would define the levels of compliance with DM and CONSTRAINTS separatly [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:38:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:38:16 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

00:38:39 <TomDN> Paolo: It's not clear to me if there are problems with the decidability of the constraints

Paolo Missier: It's not clear to me if there are problems with the decidability of the constraints [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:39:23 <TomDN> Paolo: The technical discussion should be had offline, before dismissing the document

Paolo Missier: The technical discussion should be had offline, before dismissing the document [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:40:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:40:12 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

00:40:17 <TomDN> +q to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?

Tom De Nies: +q to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?

00:40:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:40:46 <TomDN> Luc: maybe it shouldn't be called CONSTRAINTS, but VALIDITY?

Luc Moreau: maybe it shouldn't be called CONSTRAINTS, but VALIDITY? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:40:59 <Luc> ack tom

Luc Moreau: ack tom

00:40:59 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN, you wanted to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?

00:41:27 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

00:42:08 <TomDN> Luc: i don't hear objections to the compliance section, on the contrary, there is large support for it

Luc Moreau: i don't hear objections to the compliance section, on the contrary, there is large support for it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:42:36 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

00:42:57 <TomDN> jcheney: Could use some help in editing the constraints

James Cheney: Could use some help in editing the constraints [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ]

00:43:14 <TomDN> ... but input such as today's is valuable

Tom De Nies: ... but input such as today's is valuable

00:43:56 <TomDN> ... We should keep in mind: There's no point in standardizing something that's not computable.

Tom De Nies: ... We should keep in mind: There's no point in standardizing something that's not computable.

00:44:47 <TomDN> ... Would be happy with a proposal to comfirm this.

Tom De Nies: ... Would be happy with a proposal to comfirm this.

00:45:15 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

00:45:22 <Luc> proposed: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints

PROPOSED: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints

00:45:26 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

00:45:27 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

00:45:29 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

00:45:30 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

00:45:33 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

00:45:33 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

00:45:34 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

00:45:38 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

00:45:41 <TomDN> actually, +MAX_INT

Tom De Nies: actually, +MAX_INT

00:45:54 <Luc> accepted: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints

RESOLVED: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints

00:46:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

00:46:41 <pgroth> trackbot end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot end telcon

00:46:45 <khalidBelhajjame> bye

Khalid Belhajjame: bye

00:46:54 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

00:47:39 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

00:47:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth

00:47:51 <pgroth> rrsagent, set logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set logs public



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#12) generated 2012-07-04 08:11:03 UTC by 'pgroth', comments: 'added one more topic on last call'