Chatlog 2011-07-06

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

12:50:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
12:50:33 <RRSAgent> logging to
12:50:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:50:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
12:50:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
12:50:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:50:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
12:50:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2011
12:50:55 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
<luc>Guest: Eric Prud'hommeaux
12:50:55 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 50 minutes ago
12:51:17 <Luc> Agenda:
12:51:18 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started
12:51:25 <Zakim> + +1.617.715.aaaa
12:52:28 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
12:52:35 <Luc> Scribe: Simon Miles
12:52:39 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
12:54:27 <Luc> conference code 77681# 
12:54:46 <sandro> zakim, this is prov1
12:54:46 <Zakim> sandro, this was already SW_(PROV1)8:00AM
12:54:47 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV1)8:00AM
12:55:42 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
12:55:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa
12:55:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
12:55:46 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1
12:56:04 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room
12:56:05 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
12:57:24 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT:  77681# (note the "1")
12:59:46 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
13:01:54 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
13:02:36 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
13:02:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room
13:02:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
13:03:06 <stain> mr. conference is not listening to my code
13:03:28 <stain> it's restricted at this time
13:03:29 <stain> what code is it?
13:03:50 <pgroth> hmm, it should be the same one, right?
13:04:12 <Luc> conference code 77681#
13:04:18 <stain> ah.. with a 1 in the end
13:04:31 <stain> no, it's not valid
13:05:10 <stain> The conference is restricted at this time for 7768# - not valid for 77681#
13:05:13 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aabb
13:05:34 <zednik> I just got on with 77681#
13:06:03 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
13:06:06 <stain> hurray
13:06:19 <stain> Zakim: +44.789.470.aacc is me
13:06:32 <stain> (and my mobile number recognized from Skype)
13:06:39 <stain> is there a ppt or video link?
13:08:17 <Zakim> +??P9
13:08:26 <stain> Zakim: +??P9 is me
13:09:43 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
13:09:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, +1.518.633.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, ??P9
13:09:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
13:09:47 <zednik> will there be any screen sharing?  webex or gotomeeting?
13:10:21 <zednik> + +1.518.633.aabb
13:10:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
13:10:32 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
13:10:37 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
13:10:41 <zednik> Zakim: +1.518.633.aabb is me
13:10:46 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
13:11:03 <stain> zakim, +??P9 is me
13:11:03 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9'
13:11:13 <stain> Zakim: ??P9 is me
13:11:21 <stain> Zakim, ??P9 is me
13:11:21 <Zakim> +stain; got it
13:11:28 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me
13:11:28 <Zakim> +stain; got it
13:11:55 <zednik> Zakim, +1.518.633.aabb is me
13:11:55 <Zakim> +zednik; got it
<luc> Topic: Introduction and Admin issues
<luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Luc revisited the charter, its deliverables and the timetable. We have three months to produce the First Public Working Draft for the model and formalization. It is proposed we also work on provenance access, with the same timescale.  The objectives of this F2F meeting are to put things in place so that we can start creating specification documents, raise issues against them and iterate their designs over the next three months. 
13:12:01 <smiles> Luc: a round of introductions...
13:12:12 <smiles> Luc: I am a co-chair of the WG
13:12:33 <stain> we only hear fragments as the conference telephone is muting you too eagerly
13:13:01 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
13:13:12 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
13:13:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, zednik, stain, stain
13:13:25 <tlebo> we will be louder
13:13:59 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
13:14:16 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
13:14:25 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
13:14:30 <smiles> Luc: all participants to introduce themselves
13:15:00 <smiles> Luc: 4 sessions today, 4 today; finish 5pm on dot tomorrow, maybe later today
13:15:00 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
13:15:14 <IlkayAltintas> IlkayAltintas has joined #prov
13:15:28 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
13:15:33 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 30 Jun telecon
13:15:41 <smiles> +1
13:15:42 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
13:15:43 <stain> +1
13:15:51 <jcheney> +1
13:16:01 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
13:16:04 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of 30 Jun telecon
13:16:21 <zednik> +1
13:16:31 <smiles> Luc: Action review - no actions
13:16:37 <ryan> ryan has joined #prov
13:16:56 <smiles> Luc: Meeting objectives: slides available from agenda page
13:16:56 <stain> 
13:17:16 <smiles> Luc: 7 deliverables and timetable to produce them are in the charter
13:17:39 <smiles> ... first draft of conceptual and formal models due in 3 months time
13:18:31 <smiles> ... What would we like to release by 6 months deadline?
13:18:36 <stain> zednik: are you able to hear this..?
13:19:10 <smiles> ... aspire to define *core* concepts and resolve most issues for these concepts
13:19:11 <stain> both  my skype and voip connection are fragmenting a lot.. "that's the minimal. We need the inspir... ahsl  ... got some agreements
13:19:39 <smiles> Deborah: Are which are core concepts documented somewhere?
13:19:50 <GK> GK has joined #prov
13:20:00 <khalidbelhajjame>
13:20:37 <smiles> Luc: for formal model first draft, have lightweight model using semweb technologies, have resolved issues related to that model
13:20:51 <zednik> stain: the audio is quiet but followable for me
13:21:17 <smiles> Luc: access and query TF, could aim to produce draft regarding access only by 6 months deadline
13:21:38 <smiles> ... issues related to the proposals resolved by first draft
13:21:57 <smiles> Luc: any comments on first draft aims?
13:22:01 <Luc> q?
13:22:16 <Zakim> +??P10
13:22:23 <Luc> q?
13:22:32 <GK> zakim, ??P10 is me
13:22:32 <Zakim> +GK; got it
13:23:19 <GK> zakim, who is talking?
13:23:20 <smiles> Paulo: in incubator group, we identified core concepts which we now use in WG, but can see some redundancy and overlapping in them
13:23:31 <Zakim> GK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (52%)
13:23:46 <Deborah> so the ProvenanceConcepts link above by khalidbelhajjame i think is a set of proposed core ;  is there a similar list for other concepts that may or may not be included?
13:23:58 <smiles> Luc: agreed that need to avoid overlap/ambiguity
13:24:18 <Deborah> (sorry - Deborah is Deborah - i named myself but irc did not take it)
13:24:20 <IlkayAltintas> +q
13:24:36 <smiles> ... shows slide proposing process for next 3 months
13:24:49 <stain> GK, the sound might drop if the meeting goes quiet - as long as someone keeps making noise or talking it's OK :)
13:25:04 <smiles> ... aspiration to define all the core concepts in the charter as identified by model TF
13:25:06 <stain> GK: we're on
13:25:11 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
13:25:22 <sandro> WEBCAM IS UP.
13:25:37 <sandro> (Sorry for low contrast on slides...  the room is fairly bright.)
13:25:58 <stain> sandro: thanks, it's quite allright
13:26:06 <smiles> ... as soon as F2F1 over, want to produce draft of deliverables in W3C style, including schema (formal model)
13:26:11 <GK> @sandro, looks pretty useful, tx
13:26:52 <smiles> ... then review period, using W3C tools; it is here that we raise issues of overlap, redundancy etc.
13:27:19 <smiles> ... use telecons to discuss and resolve, prioritised by how much traffic on mailing list
13:27:28 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov
13:27:57 <smiles> ... iterate for each issue, resolve by vote; last 2 weeks to finalise documents
13:28:39 <GK> @smiles, ReSpec makes it v. easy to make W3C style docs -
13:28:49 <smiles> Khalid: two deliverables are due at same time, but D2 (formal model) dependent on D1 (conceptual model)
13:29:17 <smiles> Luc: have to do in parallel, co-evolve; people will be working on both
13:29:27 <smiles> Ilkay: confusion between formal model and formal semantics
13:30:05 <smiles> PaulG: formal model is instantiation of model in semweb technology; (formal model is bad name); formal semantics is mathematical definition
13:30:20 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
13:30:53 <Luc> q?
13:30:59 <Luc> ack 
13:31:02 <Luc> q?
13:31:06 <Luc> q-
13:31:14 <Luc> ack IlkayAltintas
13:31:15 <zednik> very quiet right now
13:31:20 <Deborah> perhaps we should use another name rather than formal model - i think it is confusing - perhaps schema model
13:31:29 <Deborah> q+
13:31:30 <zednik> q?
13:31:32 <smiles> jcheney: ambiguity in term formalisation, could mean mathematics or schema
13:31:43 <smiles> Paolo: note that D3 (formal semantics) is optional
13:32:12 <Luc> q?
13:32:13 <smiles> Luc: specified optional because we weren't sure if there would be critical in mass in WG; it seems that there is
13:32:48 <smiles> Deborah: terms may confuse readers
13:32:54 <GK> I think there is a danger that formal semantics makes a spec *less* useful if it's over-specfified / over-constrained.
13:33:04 <smiles> PaulG: mean "schema"
13:33:26 <smiles> Deborah: we need 1 schema
13:33:40 <GK> I'm not speaking against formal semantics, but think it needs to be approached lightly.
13:34:06 <Luc> q?
13:34:07 <smiles> Luc: for first draft, we are suggesting lightweight (e.g. RDFS) schema
13:34:25 <Luc> ack qwebirc
13:34:28 <Luc> q?
13:34:35 <smiles> (note for minuting: qwebirc = Deborah)
13:34:49 <smiles> Luc: objectives for this meeting:
13:35:01 <smiles> ... gain further agreement on concept definitions
13:35:10 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
13:35:20 <smiles> ... solve some issues in concept definitions; some will be left to those defining schema
13:35:30 <smiles> ... describe journalism example using concepts
13:35:41 <smiles> ... discuss possible graphical notation
13:35:59 <Deborah> Just for the record, I would like to get an RDFS as well as an OWL encoding   (luc thought an owl encoding may take too much time - I think we can get a lightweight one out)
13:36:02 <Paolo> q?
13:36:14 <smiles> ... gain agreement on provenance access, decide document structure, decide tech, resolve some issues
13:36:50 <smiles> ... for other two TFs, decide where we are going to go next, what test cases are and what we will do with them; identify responsibilities, ownership of documents
13:36:57 <smiles> Luc: anything else?
13:37:07 <smiles> Paolo: are we happy with the journalism example?
13:37:22 <smiles> pgroth: example can change, but agreed as that as basis
13:37:54 <smiles> Luc: good to adapt to expose problems of change
13:38:31 <smiles> jcheney: need other examples also so that others see connection with their domains
13:38:41 <smiles> pgroth: for illustration purposes, nice to have one
<luc> Topic: Session 1: Model Task Force
<luc>Summary: Paolo presented the work undertaken by the Model TF upto F2F1.  This was then followed by a long discussion on pil:Thing, and specifically, the difficulty some group members have in grasping the concept. It was felt that notion of variance/invariance of properties needed specific attention.  No specific resolution was reached.
13:39:03 <smiles> Luc: Move onto next topic: Model TF
13:40:40 <stain> is it  ? 
13:40:46 <smiles> Paolo: introduces TF members 
13:41:10 <smiles> Paolo: overall objective of TF to define provenance model
13:41:27 <smiles> ... starting points: incubator group report, journalism example
13:42:07 <smiles> ... initially articulate concepts independently of semweb, then connect and define schema after and provide semantics
13:43:00 <smiles> ... for F2F1, tried to consolidate effort on mailing list, Wiki around key concepts discussed
13:43:30 <smiles> ... these are the consolidated concepts
13:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame>
13:44:17 <smiles> ... some came up recently (e.g. time) so not discussed much prior but considered important by WG
13:44:43 <smiles> Khalid: some can be seen as "concepts", some "relations between concepts"
13:45:51 <smiles> Paolo: looking at Thing definition, we have definition, examples in journalism use cases plus others
13:46:34 <tlebo> BTW, I'm tagging the wiki with categories
13:46:43 <smiles> ... followed by issues for discussion, these are from the WG mailing list/telecon discussions
13:47:27 <smiles> ... we need to finalise definitions, evolve towards the deliverable document
13:48:26 <smiles> pgroth: in consolidated concepts, there are links to concepts that have been discussed, but there are others identified in charter but not discussed (e.g. collection)
13:49:02 <Luc> q?
13:49:09 <smiles> Paolo: also need to coordinate with access and query TF, to say how you obtain assertions in model
13:50:13 <smiles> ... as a WG, we have agreed on some points (see slides/Wiki for exact wording of points)
13:50:41 <pgroth> +q
13:51:50 <smiles> ... there are outstanding issues which need to be addressed
13:52:13 <Luc> q?
13:52:33 <smiles> ... next steps: formalise prioritised provenance concepts, map to journalism example and extend to account for agreed concepts
13:53:04 <smiles> ... example comes with some sample queries, which we need to try to express these using our concepts 
13:53:08 <Luc> q?
13:53:29 <smiles> ... also need a primer in natural language for those outside WG
13:53:38 <smiles> Deborah: primer also has examples of use?
13:53:40 <smiles> Paolo: yes
13:54:07 <smiles> pgroth: there is a separate primer for all of WG, but this comes later
13:54:48 <Luc> q?
13:55:20 <pgroth> ack pgroth
13:55:20 <smiles> Paolo: being able to express example queries and write primer are tests of model
13:55:27 <Paulo_> Paulo_ has joined #prov
13:55:32 <smiles> pgroth: over dinner, ask us to come up with better names than PIL
13:55:48 <smiles> Luc: questions on Paolo presentation?
13:56:12 <smiles> Paulo: Was derivation dicsussed in a telecon?
13:56:17 <smiles> Luc: yes
13:56:26 <smiles> Paulo: do we need this concept at all?
13:56:40 <tlebo> where is the page listing suggested names for PIL?
13:56:49 <smiles> Luc: Derivation will be discussed in one of the F2F1 sessions
13:57:47 <smiles> Paulo: we will eventually need a "theory of provenance", founded on the model, combining formal semantics and model
13:58:05 <GK1> This talk of *a* theory of provenance makes me feel deeply uneasy.   I think we need to put some vocabulary out there that developers can use.
13:58:22 <GK1> Also, there may be different theories applicable to different situations.
13:59:04 <Luc> q?
13:59:04 <smiles> ... looking at current discussions, looks like provenance theory would be based partially on proof theory, part on assertion theory
14:00:42 <smiles> ... would like WG to connect model with proof theory, as part of activity on formal semantics
14:01:33 <smiles> Luc: not yet discussed how formal semantics will be developed, happy for Paulo to put forward suggestions
14:01:42 <Luc> q?
14:02:36 <GK1> This is a standardization working group, not an academic research project.  It's fair to note that there may be existing theories, and point them out, but I would worry if our work is committed to one that isn't *widely* recognized - and I'm not aware that such a thing exists.
14:02:41 <smiles> Paolo: see it as, if we can formalise model in, for example, proof theory, then this is welcome
14:04:07 <Luc> q?
14:04:22 <smiles> jcheney: waiting for informal definition process to converge before formalising
14:05:20 <smiles> Luc: it is clear that at this table there are those keen to provide formal semantics; want to get started after F2F1, but focus now is on natural language definitions
14:05:47 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
14:06:16 <Deborah> +1 to getting a formalization discussion going (and acknowledge that it follows at least some consensus on some core from the model task force)
14:06:29 <smiles> Luc: we spent a long time talking about resources before we made some decisions - separate model from web architecture, then find some adequate definitions (thing, IPV of)
14:06:52 <GK1> We may have stopped talking about "resources", but IFAICT, a "thing" is described as exactly what is called a "resource" in web architecture.
14:07:05 <smiles> Luc: now want open discussion on these two concepts: thing and IPVT
14:07:17 <Deborah> now looking at
14:08:30 <smiles> Paolo: we now have "stuff", "state of stuff", "thing", "properties"
14:09:19 <smiles> Paolo: thing as defined has identity, invariant properties, mutable properties
14:09:39 <Zakim> -zednik
14:10:33 <Deborah> do we also have a distinction between stuff and thing?  i am not sure of the need for "stuff"
14:11:01 <GK1> Paolo interesting example of ICE -> sculpture -> pool of water.
14:11:06 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:11:07 <smiles> ... talk about identity, and what changes mean a change in identity
14:11:44 <smiles> ... invariance is relative to a context/scope
14:12:03 <GK1> I agree that invariance is relative.
14:12:08 <Paulo> q+
14:12:16 <Zakim> +zednik
14:12:32 <smiles> ... therefore, mutable is also relative
14:12:39 <JimMcCusker> +1 that invariance is relative.
14:13:27 <smiles> Luc: Sandro came new to this; yesterday Paul and Luc discussed
14:13:36 <stain> +1 as well
14:14:55 <stain> Deborah: I did previously suggest 'turtles all the way' so that there are no 'stuff' - but I guess the stuff is useful because it's the real thing behind a certain thing (which is just an interpretation)
14:14:57 <smiles> Sandro: first problem had was "thing", as assumed subject of provenance, but actually characterisation of that subject
14:15:14 <stain> but it's still outside our vocabulary - we're not going to say anything about the stuff
14:16:12 <smiles> ... saw no place for variant properties
14:16:23 <Luc> q?
14:17:24 <Luc> ack Paulo
14:17:28 <smiles> Khalid: from provenance point of view, only describing invariant properties
14:18:22 <smiles> Paulo: may be more abstract or concrete things (e.g. sculpture vs water)
14:19:07 <zednik> q+
14:19:23 <GK1> I don't see more or less abstraction in sculpture vs water.
14:19:31 <zednik> GK: I agree
14:20:01 <Luc> q?
14:20:59 <smiles> ... don't think variance (IVP of) and abstraction are the same thing
14:21:15 <zednik> Q+
14:21:29 <Luc> q?
14:22:30 <Luc> ack zednik
14:22:31 <smiles> Paolo: agreed that abstractions give different assertions of provenance of same thing, but all boils down to properties
14:22:34 <Luc> q?
14:23:16 <Paulo> q+
14:23:34 <zednik> q-
14:23:48 <smiles> zednik: can get into morass when talking about abstraction; all we talk about are abstractions
14:23:58 <Deborah> +1 to not including more or less mutable or more less abstract
14:24:16 <SamCoppens> q+
14:24:20 <Deborah> +q  (deborah)
14:24:40 <GK1> @zednik: +1.   I'm thinking that this talk of "invariance" is really constraining to a context, such that provenance assertions we can make *are* invariant within that context.
14:25:07 <zednik> @GK: I completely agree
14:25:13 <smiles> Paolo: need to know scope to know what invariance is relative to
14:25:27 <stain> @Paolo: Very good description
14:25:33 <smiles> smiles: the identity of the thing could be the scope
14:25:55 <Luc> q?
14:25:59 <IlkayAltintas> +q
14:27:24 <stain> you can have abstract properties such as "the materials that make out the shape of a shirt"
14:27:33 <stain> it doesn't have to be a measurement
14:27:42 <Luc> q?
14:28:28 <Luc> ack paulo
14:29:00 <smiles> Paulo: by abstract/concrete, see thing as concept over which reason, provenance as metadata to concept
14:29:02 <zednik> q+
14:29:10 <smiles> Luc: WG agreed that this is an assertion language 
14:29:23 <Luc> q?
14:29:26 <JimMcCusker> +q
14:29:47 <smiles> Paulo: it is "description of thing" we care about
14:29:50 <Luc> ack SamCoppens
14:30:33 <smiles> SamCoppens: need to distinguish information resource and physical resource
14:31:04 <smiles> Luc: do not use the word "resource"
14:31:21 <Luc> ack deborah
14:31:28 <Luc> ack (deborah)
14:31:35 <zednik> @deborah: please speak louder
14:32:09 <GK1> @samcoppens: I don't think distinguishing physical and info resources is helpful
14:32:13 <smiles> Deborah: don't think "stuff" is a good thing to introduce
14:32:23 <Paulo> q+
14:32:38 <smiles> ... also not sure need to distinguish invariant and variant
14:33:08 <smiles> Luc: what is meant by not using "stuff"?
14:34:35 <smiles> Luc: "thing" is what is in assertion language, "stuff" is what it refers to in the world
14:34:37 <GK1> Re. Deborah's comment, I think provenance is (mainly) intended to describe instances, not classes
14:35:26 <GK1> (I think that's part of what the "in the past" discussion is trying to nail.)
14:35:49 <Luc> q?
14:36:19 <sandro> deb: PML used "IdentifiedThing"
14:36:42 <smiles> Deborah: in PML, stuff is merely the instance of the IdentifiedThing
14:37:34 <smiles> Luc: it is not just stuff identified, but state of stuff
14:37:47 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:37:56 <sandro> ack IlkayAltintas 
14:37:56 <Paolo> Q?
14:37:58 <zednik> thing is state of stuff?
14:38:03 <Paolo> Q?
14:38:18 <zednik> cannot hear current speaker
14:38:21 <JimMcCusker> I would argue that in what we're talking about, thing is an observation of stuff.
14:38:52 <pgroth> q?
14:38:56 <smiles> Ilkay: if when you change some property of a thing and it becomes a different thing, then it is an invariant property
14:39:03 <zednik> still cannot follow speaker
14:39:05 <GK1> FWIW, in Web Arch, a "resource" is something that *can be* identified.  To the extent that "state of stuff" can be identified, it's also a resource in that sense.
14:39:18 <Paolo> q?
14:39:23 <Paolo> q+
14:39:31 <sandro> ack zednik 
14:40:14 <smiles> zednik: distinction between abstract and concrete not important or strong, what matters is what we can assert about
14:40:27 <GK1> @zednik: +1
14:40:35 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:40:42 <Luc> q?
14:41:14 <stain> @zednik: +1
14:41:16 <pgroth> close the queue
14:41:18 <Luc> ack JimMcCusker
14:41:31 <pgroth> zakim, close the queue
14:41:31 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed
14:41:53 <sandro> "observation" for "thing"
14:42:08 <smiles> JimMcCusker: if a thing is a set of properties observed/asserted, then call invariant properties "observations"
14:42:32 <sandro> luc: but some things are not observed, thus "characterization".
14:42:36 <smiles> Luc: but also want to talk about things not observer
14:42:38 <Luc> q?
14:42:40 <tlebo> then the subjects of two disparate "observations" can or cannot be inferred to be identical.
14:42:42 <GK1> I'm not fully convionced by ovservations and things.  Consider a stock ticker:  a reasonable provenance asseryion is that it's 15 minutes later than the "real" market data, IMO. 
14:42:43 <sandro> (I wonder about "fingerprint")
14:43:07 <Luc> ack Paulo
14:43:12 <GK1> That's an invariant that survives any single observation.
14:43:14 <tlebo> fingerprint fits well with Jim's "observation".
14:44:09 <stain> the asserter might not just observe, also interpret, reason and.. guess
14:44:37 <Luc> q?
14:44:55 <smiles> Paulo: in response to Deborah, distinction between invariant and variant is often of interest; for example, in versions what we care about is what has changed versus the stable identity
14:45:07 <JimMcCusker> True. I guess "Assertion" would be the most general, with a particular plan/recipe/whatever that describes how the assertion is being made.
14:45:51 <sandro> Paulo: Provenance implies continuity and observation 
14:46:10 <sandro> s/paulo/paolo/
14:46:42 <smiles> Paolo: more important that observed change than that change happened, and infer that process occurred to make that change
14:46:47 <sandro> paolo: process is also a key to provenance
14:46:59 <JimMcCusker> An assertion that has a creator who has the observer role is considered an observation.
14:47:57 <sandro> (I'm thinking it's not about mutablity, but about chaining from one snapshot to the next.)
14:48:06 <smiles> Luc: close this session for a break
14:48:07 <pgroth> hi all were breaking 15 minutes
14:48:12 <sandro> restart at 11:05
<luc> Topic: Session 2: Model Task Force
<luc> Summary: Instead of the word "stuff", it was agreed that entity would be more appropriate. A new working definition of pil:thing was put forward by Jim McCusker. While it was not formally approved by the group, it felt that it better represented the meaning we wanted to ascribe to pil:thing.  We also considered alternative terms for pil:thing.  A placeholder word was adopted, BOB, but in discussion, it was frequent for group members to refer to Entity State.
15:06:04 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
15:06:30 <ericstephan> scribe:  ericstephan
15:06:59 <pgroth> zakim, open the queue
15:06:59 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is open
15:07:08 <Luc> q?
15:07:29 <ericstephan> Paul - talk about some of the other concepts
15:08:38 <ericstephan> Luc - we can raise issues but we also need to be pragmatic in terms of our time.  Agreeing to disagree.
15:09:58 <sandro> ericstephan, us ":" after person's name
15:10:09 <ericstephan> Jim - If we say what we are calling a thing, is an observation or assertion (or composite of assertions). It is an information artifact about a thing in the world.  The assertion is something that is invariant.
15:10:54 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:11:16 <Deborah> ?  shall we mention states in this discussion?
15:11:31 <ericstephan> Jim - the state of the thing in the world changes through time.  If we assume that any worldly thing is variant and the assertion is invariant.  We can make the distinction between the two concepts
15:12:53 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Suggest we propose definitions like Jim's and modify them.
15:14:27 <Paolo> Looks like we are going to project the irc window here so we are all on the same page regardless of location
15:14:39 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:15:50 <Luc> A thing is an information artifact about a subject in the world.
15:16:04 <tlebo>
15:16:04 <smiles> smiles: "things" represent real-world stuffs and have properties modeling aspects of stuff states. Things have:  an identity, a set of invariant (== immutable) properties, a set of mutable properties
15:16:20 <Paolo> For reference, above is the current proposal for thing
15:17:21 <pgroth> q?
15:17:32 <Paolo> q-
15:17:34 <GK1> It seems to me that the "invariance" is captured by saying that we can make certain enduring assertions about it.
15:17:34 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:17:47 <tlebo> Observer, ObservationalContext, SubjectOfObservation ?
15:17:52 <ericstephan> JimMc:  The assertion describes the state as asserted by a particular entity.  
15:18:25 <zednik> the characterization of a thing in a provenance assertion is invariant for the scope of the provenance assertion
15:18:32 <ericstephan> JimMc:  The subject that is being described is always variant.  The description stays the same at a particular point by a particular entity.
15:19:11 <ericstephan> Tim:  Descriptions of subjects do not exist outside an observation?
15:19:51 <ericstephan> Luc:  Its in the modeling that you talk about particular properties
15:20:04 <pgroth> q?
15:20:05 <tlebo> Observations renamed to Descriptions.
15:20:15 <tlebo> Subjects are the things described by Descriptions.
15:20:46 <ericstephan> Luc:  I'd like to come back to the word description.  When we had the word thing.  the process execution used things.  If you replace the word thing by description...
15:20:57 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:21:35 <zednik> What about Characterization?
15:22:05 <ericstephan> Paul - it sounds like you need to do all of this in terms of description.  Something in the world describes a particular state.
15:22:11 <tlebo> State of a Subject is captured within its Description.
15:23:40 <ericstephan> Satya:  How do you describe the characteristics of a process?  
15:24:04 <ericstephan> JimMc:  A process is a kind of thing therefore it is an entity in the world.
15:24:58 <ericstephan> Satya:  need to Distinguish between Occurrence and Continual
15:25:04 <GK1> Q+ to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion.  If so, I think description as observation doesn't quite work.
15:25:23 <GK1> I think Satya is talking about "Occurrent" vs "continuant"
15:25:25 <Paolo> q?
15:25:47 <Paolo> q+
15:26:30 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Rephrased generation describes a subject in the world described by a description (sorry if I munged this - Eric)
15:26:30 <Luc> A Description is an information artifact about a subject in the world.   A Description is an invariant assertion, made at a particular point.       (A Description could be made by guessing, lying, observing, ...)   A Description is an Assertion about a subject that is variant in the world.   A Description consists of invariant characteristics.  
15:26:36 <Deborah> +q
15:27:03 <sandro> GK just type it
15:27:04 <Paulo> q+
15:27:08 <GK1> Iack GK1
15:27:14 <GK1> ack GK1
15:27:26 <GK1> My question is in the log, shoul;d show if you ack me
15:27:26 <pgroth> ack GK
15:27:27 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion.  If so, I think description as observation doesn't
15:27:29 <Zakim> ... quite work.
15:27:53 <ericstephan> Paulo:  Problem why we moved from observation to description?
15:27:53 <pgroth> ack paolo
15:28:04 <zednik> q+
15:28:05 <Paolo> q-
15:28:29 <zednik> q-
15:28:32 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:28:40 <pgroth> ack qweb
15:29:26 <smiles> q+
15:29:31 <pgroth> ack Paulo
15:29:36 <ericstephan> Deborah:  wanted to bring up the lack of provenance in state.  Describing something in a moment.  It could be a long period of time.  Were we working with a state centric view but not discussing it?
15:30:10 <Deborah> and further that possibly this new way of discussing it with descriptions might work
15:30:46 <pgroth> q?
15:30:57 <sandro> q+
15:31:02 <ericstephan> Paulo da Silva:  Adding Subject Assertion to Thing Description.
15:31:39 <pgroth> ack khal
15:31:40 <Paolo> q+
15:31:58 <Luc>
15:32:14 <ericstephan> Luc:  Revised definitions on the wiki
15:32:16 <satya> Is description a form of narration? (derived from Luc's defintion)
15:32:23 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:32:46 <ericstephan> SimonM:  Not clear about the later definition and what was being defined by Jim.
15:33:00 <ericstephan> JimMc:  Description is always invarient
15:33:05 <ryan> ryan has joined #prov
15:33:41 <ericstephan> JimMc:  Just because the description is invariant it doesn't mean the entire entity is invariant 
15:33:48 <GK1> @jimmc: Don't we want to say the "Description" has enduring truth?
15:34:39 <GK1> ... (for "Description" as a provenance assertion)
15:34:50 <zednik> q+
15:35:09 <ericstephan> Sandro:  Put in a little vote for observation, description isn't bad but has many different types of meanings.
15:35:43 <zednik> Q+ observation has generally agreed upon semantics in science
15:35:54 <ericstephan> Luc:  Can you have an observation that is not observed?
15:36:19 <Paolo> I like observation as it implies it is relative - to an observer. Of which there can be multiple
15:36:22 <zednik> Q+ to ask Observation has defined semantics in science
15:36:39 <Luc> q?
15:36:42 <pgroth> ack san
15:37:04 <ericstephan> Paulo:  make note of what Graham is trying to say.
15:37:15 <tlebo> (paolo - if you reload the image will be smaller)
15:37:29 <GK1> yes .. the perspective/context 
15:37:31 <ericstephan> JimMc:  its a claim not an enduring truth
15:37:42 <pgroth> q?
15:37:58 <GK1> OK "truth" is problematic
15:37:59 <ericstephan> JimMc:  Its a piece of information that is enduring, but not sure about the truth bit.
15:38:26 <Deborah> +1 to not using the word truth
15:38:28 <GK1> The nature is that the turth or otherwise of the claim doesn't change
15:38:37 <zednik> +1 to not using truth
15:38:42 <sandro> "invariant claim" maybe
15:38:49 <pgroth> ack paolo
15:38:54 <pgroth> ack zednik
15:38:54 <Zakim> zednik, you wanted to ask Observation has defined semantics in science
15:38:56 <zednik> an act of observing a property or phenomenon, with the goal of producing an estimate of the value of the property. A specialized event whose result is a data value.
15:39:12 <ericstephan> StephanZ:  Within science observation has a different definition than the way we are using it.
15:39:18 <Deborah> +1 to not using the word observation
15:39:19 <sandro> q+
15:39:29 <ericstephan> StephanZ:  Avoid the term observation.
15:39:46 <zednik> Q+ to ask for alternate to Thing/Description
15:40:12 <ericstephan> PaulG:  It is reasonable to replace the verbage, who has the most votes for each term on the whiteboard?
15:41:12 <sandro> webcam folks, working?   reload?
15:41:21 <GK1> WebCam OK
15:41:27 <ericstephan> Vote on stuff, subject thing, entity, and something in the world.  Which one is your favorite?
15:41:53 <zednik> webcam is back up for me
15:41:59 <GK1> ARe we voting on terms to appear in the actual spec?
15:42:02 <stain> Are we using AV or first past the post?
15:42:44 <stain> +1 stuff
15:43:04 <stain> I'm confused by te process.. can't see the hands and the video is out of sync
15:43:06 <GK1> vote stuff:-1, thing:0, entity:0, somethinginworld:-1,subject:OK,object:0 
15:43:19 <zednik> +1 for entity
15:43:56 <stain> vote stuff:-1 thing:+1 entity:+1 somethingintheworld:-1 subject:1 object: 0
15:43:57 <Paolo> @stian just having fun
15:44:15 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Restart vote rejection is the goal 
15:44:15 <GK1> Webcam is a bit high on whiteboard, can't see bottom
15:44:33 <ericstephan> Stuff rejected
15:44:37 <GK1> for Resource:+1
15:44:40 <GK1> :)
15:44:56 <ericstephan> Something in the world rejected
15:45:04 <ericstephan> object and resource rejected
15:45:12 <tlebo> Subject ~= Thing ~= Entity
15:45:23 <Paolo> @GK you are then /rejecting/ resource, right?
15:45:53 <GK1> No, vote FOR.  In the final analysis, I think what we want to capture is exactly the notion of a web resource.
15:46:03 <Deborah> yes - rejecting Stuff, something in the world, object, and resource
15:46:28 <stain> Derivation as subject and objet
15:46:32 <stain> has
15:46:32 <ericstephan> Satya:  Subject can be confusing from RDF perspective
15:46:46 <GK1> Subject and Object are confusing terms in RDF, but it's what we're stuck with.
15:47:05 <stain> luckily "stuff" is just as blurry everywhere else it's used!
15:47:41 <ericstephan> Sandro:  Suggest item
15:48:00 <zednik> for Item: -1
15:49:18 <ericstephan> PaulG:  We already made this decision:  we cannot use resource.
15:49:36 <Deborah> remaining terms - subject, thing, entity  (and possibly item) 
15:49:37 <ericstephan> Sandro:  We need to be clear on why we rejected resource
15:49:50 <GK1> Is this terminology fixed for the final spec?  I'm happy to continue for now.
15:50:31 <GK1> There's no real discussion about *what* a *web resource* is -- the main discussion is about distinguishing different kinds of resource.
15:50:54 <Paolo> @gk not final, but we are trying to replace "stuff" and "thing" for the purpose of the next draft
15:51:07 <ericstephan> Deborah:  Entity Decently defined in some knowledge sources.
15:51:18 <tlebo> q+
15:51:34 <zednik> q-
15:51:35 <pgroth> ack sandro
15:52:08 <pgroth> q?
15:52:12 <pgroth> ack telco
15:52:22 <ericstephan> Tim:  Of the three, thing and entity are not oriented toward being observed.   We should give something of what we are talking about.
15:52:29 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:52:32 <GK1> @paolo - I'm content to continue for now with ¬resource, but I'd like to keep an option to revisit later
15:52:54 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Can we just take a vote now?  
15:53:25 <ericstephan> Sandro:  Unless anyone strongly rejects it may be reasonable to vote.
15:53:55 <ericstephan> JamesC:  Just to put it in context, this vote is for the next draft
15:54:36 <RyanGolden> RyanGolden has joined #prov
15:54:41 <pgroth> straw poll - choice between subject, thing and entity
15:54:50 <GK1> (IETF does "humming")
15:54:54 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:55:51 <pgroth> vote for subject:
15:55:52 <GK1> for subject:+1 (of the three)
15:55:52 <tlebo> +1 for subject
15:56:01 <Deborah> Deborah votes for entity
15:56:02 <sandro> entity, because of rdf:subject
15:56:09 <satya> entity
15:56:10 <stain> +1 for entity
15:56:14 <Paolo> +1
15:56:22 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:56:26 <pgroth> vote for subject
15:56:28 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Reset
15:56:29 <Paulo> +1
15:56:30 <satya> -1
15:56:31 <GK1> +1
15:56:36 <tlebo> +1 for subject
15:56:37 <StephenCresswell> +1 for subject
15:56:38 <IlkayAltintas> -1
15:57:06 <pgroth> All those in favor of subject
15:57:06 <ericstephan> (Reset again)
15:57:08 <satya> -1
15:57:09 <GK1> for subject:+1
15:57:22 <tlebo> +1 for subject
15:57:25 <Paulo> +1
15:57:26 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:57:37 <Paolo> +1
15:57:57 <sandro> JimMc: +1 subject
15:58:12 <pgroth> All those in favor of Thing
15:58:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:58:35 <satya> +1
15:58:36 <Vinh> +1
15:58:36 <Deborah> Deborah +1 for entity
15:58:36 <ericstephan> +1
15:58:36 <pgroth> All those in favor of Entity
15:58:36 <RyanGolden> +1
15:58:37 <sandro> +1 entity
15:58:37 <stain> +1
15:58:37 <smiles> +1
15:58:39 <zednik> +1 for entity
15:58:41 <IlkayAltintas> +1
15:58:43 <jcheney> +1 entity
15:58:45 <SamCoppens> +1 for entity
15:58:53 <satya> +1
15:58:53 <sandro> No one was in favor of THING.   khalidbelhajjame  was about ENTITY
15:58:54 <Vinh> +1
15:59:04 <ericstephan> Deborah:  Khalid and Satya voted for Entity
15:59:26 <pgroth> decision entity
15:59:26 <sandro> PROPOSED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff"....
15:59:38 <Deborah> Second sandro's proposal
15:59:40 <jcheney> +1
15:59:40 <sandro> +1
15:59:41 <ericstephan> +1
15:59:41 <Paolo> +1
15:59:42 <smiles> +1
15:59:42 <Deborah> +1
15:59:43 <Vinh> +1
15:59:43 <RyanGolden> +1
15:59:44 <satya> +1
15:59:46 <tlebo> +1
15:59:47 <SamCoppens> +1
15:59:50 <stain> +1
15:59:58 <IlkayAltintas> +1
15:59:58 <GK1> 0
15:59:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:59:59 <zednik> +1
16:00:09 <sandro> RESOLVED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff"....
16:00:09 <stain> does it have to be <!--ENTITY caps? 
16:00:17 <sandro> NOT caps!
16:00:27 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Vote for new names for Thing
16:01:54 <GK1> for Snapshot:-1, Fingerprint:-1
16:02:02 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
16:02:34 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
16:02:36 <GK1> I need to break off, have (infrequent) train to catch.
16:03:12 <pgroth> thanks GK
16:03:24 <Zakim> -GK
16:03:44 <Zakim> -zednik
16:04:18 <stain> View, Perspective, Interpretation
16:04:24 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:05:02 <zednik> lost, call - calling back in
16:05:50 <Zakim> +zednik
16:05:56 <Zakim> -zednik
16:06:23 <Zakim> +zednik
16:07:15 <ericstephan> Luc:  If you go back to original definition of thing.  We were identifying the state not the stuff.  In the same token, the "thing" has an identity, but not an entity in the world.
16:07:29 <stain> exactly!
16:07:39 <stain> when we give something an identity, we are implying a 'thing'
16:07:55 <stain> hence an interpretation/perspective/selection of the entity
16:08:03 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
16:08:18 <ericstephan> JimMc:  The point of this is from the set of entitites you should be able to identify which entity you are talking about.
16:10:10 <jcheney> q+
16:10:14 <stain> q+
16:10:35 <tlebo> (my vote no): characterize: describe the distinctive nature or features of 
16:10:52 <ericstephan> PaulG:  We will do the speaker queue and then go through the rejections.
16:11:14 <satya> q+ for James point
16:11:25 <tlebo> q-
16:11:46 <jcheney> q-
16:11:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:12:21 <tlebo> when we author OWL axioms, the owl:Class is the pil:Entity that we are creating pil:Descriptions of ?
16:12:28 <tlebo> ... pil: Descriptions
16:12:33 <pgroth> ack stain
16:12:35 <satya> q-
16:13:15 <ericstephan> Satya:  You need to have enough to properly distinguish between two things (black shirt and blue shirt)
16:13:27 <IlkayAltintas> +q
16:13:39 <tlebo> +1 to not needing to name the global thing and being PERMITTED to use your own name for the thing you are describing.
16:14:04 <tlebo> we don't need to name entities to describe them.
16:14:08 <zednik> audio is breaking up
16:14:22 <tlebo> feedback on phone: please mute yourself.
16:14:32 <tlebo> thanks!
16:14:34 <ericstephan> Ilkay:  We are trying to define to many things with one word.  
16:14:34 <stain> Stian: the thing IS identifying the entity - we don't need to worry about how it identifies the entity
16:14:36 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
16:14:48 <pgroth> stain - yes
16:14:48 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (46%)
16:15:12 <zednik> audio is better now
16:15:12 <pgroth> stian, i think that's exactly point
16:15:21 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Lets try to reject some of the words
16:15:32 <zednik> vote to reject Observation
16:16:01 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
16:16:04 <zednik> vote to reject Assertion
16:16:37 <stain> @pgroth, yes, the 'thing' is a contextualised way to talk about the entity, like our blue shirt in the office 
16:16:49 <zednik> vote to reject Entity Assertion
16:17:05 <zednik> vote to reject Fingerprint
16:17:10 <zednik> vote to reject Snapshot
16:17:12 <stain> -1 snapshot
16:17:27 <zednik> half vote on Representation?
16:17:33 <stain> Representation is good - but 'taken' already by HTTP
16:19:03 <stain> Description - does it imply that you need to include the description? (ie. some properties)
16:19:22 <satya> I agree with James - state description
16:19:54 <satya> q+
16:20:14 <pgroth> ack Ilkay
16:20:35 <Zakim> +Lena
16:20:48 <ericstephan> SimonM:  The concept definitions from the conceptdefinitions page seem all very different than in the original definition.
16:22:07 <tlebo> q+
16:22:13 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:22:19 <ericstephan> is description to general?
16:22:23 <stain> +1 too general
16:22:36 <pgroth> ack stay
16:22:38 <ericstephan> majority raised hands at f2f1
16:22:41 <pgroth> ack sat
16:22:41 <zednik> +1 'just' Description is too general
16:22:58 <stain> no, not a state, a view or understanding of the entity
16:23:10 <tlebo> anti "characterization": b/c describe the ___distinctive nature___ or features of
16:23:23 <tlebo> pro "characterization": b/c describe the distinctive nature or ___features of___
16:23:47 <stain> the distinctiveness is key
16:25:12 <ericstephan> new editted definitions: 
16:25:30 <stain> 
16:25:38 <pgroth> q?
16:26:07 <pgroth> ack telco
16:26:18 <Paolo> ack tlebo
16:26:48 <ericstephan> Tim:  Concerned about state in the definition. 
16:29:06 <ericstephan> Tim:  Do I need two descriptions of temperature if the temperature changed over two hours?
16:32:47 <Paulo> q+
16:33:21 <pgroth> q-
16:33:26 <pgroth> ack Paulo
16:33:30 <tlebo> q?
16:33:44 <Luc> q?
16:34:50 <ericstephan> Paulo:  The task modeling approach doesn't need to know all the intermediate states.  My concern is not states but state transition.
16:35:27 <zednik> q+
16:36:50 <ericstephan> Tim:  is proposing is to eliminate state at the top level.
16:38:09 <jcheney> q+
16:38:13 <YolandaGil> q+
16:38:17 <ericstephan> Deborah:  A weakness of PML looking back is that we didn't have a top level concept state.  If you added granularity to it, how would you describe state?
16:39:00 <sandro> luc: temp drop example is like a car with a known velocity and unknown location.
16:39:14 <Paolo> q?
16:39:22 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:39:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:40:50 <satya> q+
16:41:04 <ericstephan> JamesC:  Why not have state description and change description?  
16:41:41 <sandro> q+ to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities.
16:41:52 <ericstephan> state description doesn't change, change description does change
16:41:55 <jcheney> q-
16:42:23 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil
16:42:40 <ericstephan> Yolanda:  When i think about state I think about the state of the world, not of a particular entity.
16:43:11 <pgroth> ack sandro
16:43:11 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities.
16:44:06 <Deborah> i like james' slant with having both description and state description..... we just encourage state descriptions as we get more information
16:46:01 <ericstephan> PaulG:  I don't think anyone wants to demand which level of abstraction.  State has implications
16:46:08 <YolandaGil> So I think we need to constrain ourselves to descriptions of the entity we are describing the provenance of.  "State" often refers to state of the world and the context of that entity, so I'd recommend not to use the term "state"
16:46:42 <pgroth> ack stay
16:46:54 <pgroth> ack sat
16:47:00 <YolandaGil> I agree with whoever said that whether an entity is the same or not is a domain-dependent decision
16:47:59 <Paolo> ...and I agree with Yolanda
16:49:59 <satya> q-
16:50:43 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:52:34 <stain> how is it spelt?
16:52:46 <ericstephan> PaulG:  Recommend using Bob as a placeholder until we find a replacement for thing
16:52:47 <Paolo> Bob? as "bob"
16:52:51 <stain> Bob! ihi
16:53:04 <YolandaGil> as in "thingama-bob"?
16:53:05 <stain> I heard 'bofh'
16:53:14 <stain> YolandaGil: oh no, stuffama-bob!
16:53:18 <pgroth> we are breaking for lunch
16:53:42 <ericstephan> :-) Yolanda
16:53:50 <Zakim> -Lena
16:54:04 <Zakim> -[ISI]
16:54:09 <pgroth> we'll start again at in half an hour (1:30pm)
16:54:09 <stain> when is it back from lunch?
16:54:12 <stain> ok
16:54:13 <stain> thanks
16:54:19 <stain> time for dinner here :)
#16:54:27 <Zakim> -stain.a
17:15:15 <GK> GK has joined #prov
17:27:05 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
17:27:28 <Luc> helena, stephan who is presenting?
17:28:19 <Zakim> -zednik
17:30:44 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 3: Connection TF & Implementation TF
<luc>Summary: EricS and StephanZ respectively presented the work accomplished by the Connection and Implementation Task Forces.  A good set of connections and implementers are identified. It was agreed that these task forces would focus on establishing a relationship with other groups/implementers,and keeping them ready to review our first public working drafts as they are released at T+6.
17:31:05 <Luc> SCRIBE:  JimMcCusker
17:31:35 <pgroth> we are starting again
17:31:41 <tlebo> I spoke with Simon at lunch. "State" is not constrained to a single moment in time. So I am comfortable with "State", but still not convinced it is necessary as part of the Concept term names.
17:31:49 <Deborah> if remote people dropped off, now is a good time to call back in
17:32:01 <pgroth> cool tle
17:32:08 <pgroth> cool tlebo
17:32:14 <Zakim> +[ISI]
17:32:19 <pgroth> i think there may be another name
17:32:26 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
17:32:44 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
17:33:00 <pgroth> or a better name than state
17:33:35 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
17:33:48 <JimMcCusker> Likewise, I think I'm more comfortable with State as opposed to Description, but we need to be clear that it's a contextualized state, and is intended as assertions about an entity as described by an agent.
17:34:15 <smiles> @JimMcCusker agreed
17:34:36 <Zakim> +zednik
17:35:06 <Deborah> we are getting the presentation up....
17:35:14 <satya> satya has joined #prov
17:35:16 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
17:35:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Connection TF
17:38:37 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Open Brainstorming to identify different sorts of connections, define "connectivity"
17:40:19 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Member contributions: DCMI, DataONE WG on Provenance, HCLS BioRDF TF, HCLS Sci Discource IG. and more.
17:43:12 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Next Steps: reach out to other connections? Quantify , Assess, Filter results. Identify linkage points for PIL, potential gaps between PIL and the connection.
17:43:15 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau, Paul Groth
17:44:01 <Deborah> link to analytic provenance community eric mentioned -
17:44:15 <JimMcCusker> thnx
17:45:56 <Luc> q?
17:46:08 <smiles> q+
17:46:36 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Balancing Act: Lots of provenance activities to reach out to, small group with which to do it. Don't want to bais.
17:47:15 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Coordination: What do other task forces need from us? When should the task forces meet with us?
17:47:16 <Luc> q?
17:47:39 <Luc> ack smiles
17:48:25 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Conflict between adoption and implementation specific issues. The Conn. TF is there to define the relationships.
17:48:47 <Paolo> Q+
17:48:51 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Concept of profiles, but maybe that's too heavyweight?
17:48:54 <Luc> q?
17:49:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Communities need to be able to explain in their own language, but who does the formal connections?
17:50:18 <pgroth> +q
17:50:30 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Analytic Provenance still in early stages, but maybe they might be a first adopter.
17:50:57 <Luc> q?
17:51:05 <JimMcCusker> smiles: The bridge is being made by the WG TF?
17:51:13 <Luc> ack Paolo
17:51:14 <Deborah> +q
17:51:21 <tlebo> BTW, the vocab mappings is in a google spreadsheet and pdfs at
17:51:25 <Deborah> whops +q (deborah)
17:51:30 <Paulo> q+
17:51:33 <JimMcCusker> paolo: is this where we talk about extension mechanisms?
17:51:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: extension or mapping into PIL.
17:52:02 <Luc> ack pgroth
17:52:16 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: We established the TF to make sure we get wide adoption.
17:52:36 <IlkayAltintas> IlkayAltintas has joined #prov
17:53:07 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: three levels: adoption, mapping, and extension.
17:53:30 <Luc> q?
17:53:31 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: initial steps are to establish links to other groups for feedback.
17:54:15 <JimMcCusker> Luc: There will be a question by the public: DC provenance vs. W3C provenance? And how can we work with both?
17:54:45 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Some goals include hopefully provide mappings on standards like DC.
17:54:53 <tlebo> best link for DC's provenance definitions?
17:54:59 <tlebo> dublin core's
17:55:08 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
17:55:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
17:55:51 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: prov-xg did an excellent job identifying existing provenance.
17:55:57 <IlkayAltintas> +q
17:55:59 <satya> I agree with Luc - mappings and extensions are not in the scope of the WG
17:56:07 <JimMcCusker> Luc: It's not the responsibility of the WG to map to PML, OPM, Provenir, etc.
17:56:08 <Luc> ack pgroth
17:56:24 <YolandaGil> q+
17:57:07 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: one example I find interesting is Creative Commons. The connection task force can show a way to link PIL to CC licensing standards.
17:57:12 <Luc> ack qwebirc
17:57:50 <JimMcCusker> deborah: Plea to start the mapping. The xg identified a number of issues that were found late in the game.
17:57:58 <satya> q+ to Deborah's point
17:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.561.216.aadd
17:58:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: start with the uncontroversial mappings to experiment.
17:59:25 <Luc> ack paulo
17:59:51 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
17:59:57 <Lena_> Lena_ has joined #prov
18:00:25 <JimMcCusker> paulo: Working with scientists on cyber-infrastructure. NSF uses this on a domain basis. 500 or so cyber-infrastructures that come and go.
18:01:04 <JimMcCusker> paulo: many existing concepts in e science is already provenance.
18:01:19 <JimMcCusker> +q
18:01:38 <Luc> D6. PIL Best Practice Cookbook (W3C Note). This document includes a limited set of best practice profiles that link with other relevant models, such as Dublin Core provenance related concepts, licensing in Creative Commons, and the OpenId identity mechanism for people.
18:02:25 <Luc> q?
18:02:42 <YolandaGil> Luc: Thanks for bringing up D6.  I agree with the 3 categories: 1) licensing and CC, 2) preservation (DC, Premis, InterPARES), 3) authentication (openID and digital signatures)
18:02:53 <Zakim> - +1.561.216.aadd
18:03:11 <JimMcCusker> -q
18:03:23 <Zakim> + +1.858.210.aaee
18:04:24 <JimMcCusker> khalidbelhajjame: Mappings could help us identify issues in modeling.
18:04:40 <Luc> ack khalidbelhajjame
18:04:41 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
18:04:47 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: Is the goal of the mapping to become inclusive of all other efforts?
18:04:52 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.858.210.aaee (24%), Meeting_Room (29%)
18:05:13 <JimMcCusker> Luc: To some extent, we will do this.
18:05:14 <pgroth> where is this idea of mappings coming from?
18:05:24 <Luc> ack IlkayAltintas
18:05:29 <Paolo> q?
18:05:46 <Luc> ack YolandaGil
18:05:53 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: Likes the 3 categories of D6, and need to be driven by those sort of tasks.
18:06:59 <Luc> q?
18:07:03 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: we will fail the group if we don't link to other groups within W3C.
18:07:39 <Zakim> - +1.858.210.aaee
18:08:31 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: in science communities, questions about what scientifically driven folks are participating.
18:08:48 <Luc> ack satya
18:08:48 <Zakim> satya, you wanted to Deborah's point
18:08:58 <JimMcCusker> satya: We won't have time to address all concerns of communities.
18:09:14 <Luc> q?
18:09:38 <YolandaGil> Doing mappings to other vocabularies is a lot of work, for the XG our mappings were an order of magnitude more work than we originally expected.
18:09:41 <satya> q-
18:09:42 <JimMcCusker> satya: on mappings, there might be complex mappings that might not get finished.
18:09:58 <zednik> file at
18:10:22 <Deborah> just to be clear - I suggested starting the mappings to some key targets... I realize that the complete mapping is potentially time consuming but i think at least getting some initial thinking about the mapping needs to be done (from deborah)
18:10:35 <Zakim> +Lena
18:10:37 <YolandaGil> I think rather than mappings we need to start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities.  Then engage other communities if we decide to do certain mappings, but doing the mappings ourselves and as an initial goal will be too hard.
18:13:28 <JimMcCusker> Impl Questionnaire URL:
18:15:13 <JimMcCusker> zednik: What did I mean by Plain HTML?
18:15:35 <satya> @Deborah: I agree to your point that other standards should inform our work, but creating explicit mapping will be difficult (even for something like DC - which does not have formal/mathematical definitions)
18:15:38 <JimMcCusker> Most interest in toolkits in Java
18:15:43 <stain> <div class="provenance"> !
18:16:04 <Luc> q?
18:16:38 <JimMcCusker> +q
18:17:14 <stain> .. but note that almost 60% are using something else than Java (as well)
18:17:34 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
18:17:42 <Paolo_> Q?
18:17:46 <Luc> q?
18:17:54 <Luc> ack JimMcCusker
18:18:01 <Paolo_> Q?
18:18:29 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker: I will reach out to caBIG for additional feedback using questionnaire.
18:18:39 <JimMcCusker> Luc: What's next?
18:19:42 <YolandaGil> what is the third level?  it's sooo hard to hear...
18:20:07 <pgroth> scientific communities
18:20:10 <YolandaGil> ah, yes, got it all!
18:20:13 <YolandaGil> thanks!
18:20:37 <JimMcCusker> Luc: First Level: Licensing, etc., Second Level: W3C communities, Third level: scientific communities
18:20:40 <Lena> @sandro any chance that the quality of the sound in the room is improved? the mic wakes up in the middle of sentences, so we are missing some parts of waht people are saying
18:21:29 <pgroth> +q
18:21:47 <JimMcCusker> Luc: what sort of coordination is expected?
18:22:04 <JimMcCusker> sandro: whatever is in the charter.
18:23:08 <JimMcCusker> deborah: What about open govt data?
18:23:15 <Zakim> -Lena
18:23:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: their charter mentions prov-wg, so there is a connection.
18:24:36 <pgroth> q+
18:25:46 <ericstephan> q+
18:26:01 <JimMcCusker> Luc: JimMcCusker, Lena, and satya should provide interfaces with HCLS.
18:26:36 <Luc> q?
18:26:40 <Luc> ack pgroth
18:26:54 <YolandaGil> I also mentioned the geospatial group at W3C, my understanding is that they are focused on ISO 19115 -- that is a very high impact area!
18:27:19 <sandro> +1 liasons using drafts as way to communicate.
18:27:21 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: only 3 months until we have a first draft. Maybe outreach should happen once we have something to show.
18:27:26 <Luc> we also have a rep of the OGC consortium in the WG
18:27:40 <YolandaGil> yes, Carl Reed
18:27:56 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: Until then, we make sure we have the right framework in place to introduce the PIL.
18:28:08 <Luc> q?
18:29:19 <Luc> ack ericstephan
18:29:49 <YolandaGil> I agree with Paul, start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities.  An initial report in 3 months makes sense too.
18:30:12 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Would cataloging possible early adopters be a useful product?
18:31:16 <Paolo> q+
18:31:27 <Lena> (I am trying to convince HCLS to leave the prov work to the prov wg ;) )
18:31:41 <JimMcCusker> Luc: how do we go about producing the report?
18:32:01 <pgroth> go lena!
18:32:25 <YolandaGil> Lena: that's a great goal, but they have many additional requirements that might be too much to cover for us :)
18:32:58 <Zakim> +Lena
18:33:21 <JimMcCusker> action: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection.
18:33:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [on Eric Stephan - due 2011-07-13].
18:33:27 <Luc> q?
18:33:30 <ericstephan> Action Plan to deliver the connection report and the plan will include a timetable and a list of connections and individuals who will contribute a description of their connection.
18:33:30 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Plan
18:35:34 <JimMcCusker> Note ACTION-13 should have due date of 2011-07-14.
18:35:50 <YolandaGil> EricS: I will absolutely help with the report, though I have very limited availability until Aug 15 unfortunately
18:35:51 <zednik> q+
18:36:17 <Luc> ack paolo
18:36:38 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: It would be good to use direct liasons to communities and working groups.
18:37:21 <tlebo>
18:37:41 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: please take note of community milestones.
18:37:42 <Luc> q?
18:38:17 <YolandaGil> Paolo: I agree.  I'd suggest that the WG develops one slide with an overview/wiki pointer/POC that we can all use when we go present our stuff or attend meetings!
18:38:27 <Lena> (need to include countries in the questionnaire also)
18:38:30 <JimMcCusker> zednik: Tasks implementation should do is to catalog stakeholders, put out a second version of the questionnaire.
18:39:37 <Lena> (goal of the survey: if people are able to express their opinion, they will more likely adopt the product of the wg)
18:41:00 <Lena> (since some of them have offered contact information and interest in developing toolkits, we can contact them once we have a product)
18:41:58 <zednik> gather implementation requirements - touches upon access and connection TF as well
18:42:19 <zednik> audio is really breaking up for me right now
18:42:48 <Luc> q?
18:42:53 <zednik> q-
18:42:53 <Luc> ack zednik
18:43:16 <JimMcCusker> action: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report
18:43:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Create a plan for a implementation report [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13].
18:43:50 <JimMcCusker> Note actual due date for ACTION-14 is 2011-07-14.
18:44:14 <JimMcCusker> action: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire.
18:44:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Write second iteration of the questionnaire. [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13].
18:44:27 <Luc> q?
18:44:43 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Test cases and use cases.
18:45:22 <Luc> q?
18:45:30 <zednik> example of test cases from W3C process -
18:46:02 <Lena> those in the room, PLEASE scribe the questions directed to me or stephan - we REALLY are having a hard time hearing what's going on in the room!
18:46:20 <JimMcCusker> jcheney: split use cases into generating and storing use cases?
18:46:39 <Luc> q?
18:47:03 <zednik> q+
18:47:07 <JimMcCusker> smiles: test cases need to be implementation-specific.
18:47:40 <IlkayAltintas> +q
18:48:08 <JimMcCusker> zednik: test cases must be machine processable as well as implementation-specific.
18:48:20 <JimMcCusker> zednik: therefore, we need a formal schema.
18:48:48 <JimMcCusker> zednik: how are these test cases different from other kinds of test cases?
18:48:51 <Luc> q?
18:49:05 <pgroth> q+
18:49:32 <satya> We need to consider that the test cases are part of the W3C recommendation process - notionally demonstrates that our work is practical/implementable
18:49:36 <JimMcCusker> Luc: The idea of a validator isn't bad. We may come up with additional constraints that aren't syntactic.
18:50:03 <Luc> q?
18:50:09 <Luc> ack zednik
18:50:13 <zednik> q-
18:50:16 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: We all agree we need test cases, but it's too early to figure out what those test cases should be yet.
18:50:50 <JimMcCusker> sandro: test cases were used along the way to record decisions in other groups like OWL.
18:51:40 <JimMcCusker> Luc; we're not going to have test cases for a while, around T+7.
18:51:43 <Deborah> (from deborah) we have a integrity constraint-based validator model for PML  (my student Jiao Tao's phd work is on this).   just mentioning it for the notes since we may want to come back and look at this model
18:51:59 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: we can talk about this in 2 month's time and still have test cases in time.
18:52:02 <Luc> q?
18:52:23 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: coming up with test cases is easier with a draft document to work against.
18:52:41 <jcheney> q+
18:53:12 <Luc> ack Ilk
18:53:15 <Luc> ack pgr
18:53:27 <JimMcCusker> zednik: we do need feedback from implementers on what test cases they would like to see.
18:53:58 <Luc> q?
18:54:09 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: What about backwards compatibility?
18:54:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: this isn't an issue until we get to candidate recommendation.
18:54:50 <Luc> ack jcheney
18:54:52 <Luc> q?
18:55:10 <ericP> ericP has joined #prov
18:55:11 <zednik> audio is breaking up
18:55:27 <sandro> zednik, James just talks very softly.
18:55:37 <JimMcCusker> jcheney: It seems that as we work on the model, there will be decision points, and each of those points should be recorded as a test case.
18:55:43 <Luc> q?
18:56:07 <Luc> q?
18:56:50 <Lena> (heya ericP!)
18:56:51 <JimMcCusker> sandro: Introductions of Eric Prud'hommeaux
18:57:23 <JimMcCusker> (ericP to the rest of us).
18:57:32 <Zakim> -Lena
19:05:37 <GK> GK has joined #prov
19:08:34 <Zakim> -[ISI]
19:15:43 <stain> what's going on.. is it still the break?
19:15:57 <stain> I heard Luc and Satya and started paying attention
19:16:21 <Zakim> -zednik
19:16:32 <zednik> according to my calendar we should have anothe 15 minutes of break
19:18:46 <Zakim> +??P0
19:20:26 <GK> zakim, ??p0 is me
19:20:26 <Zakim> +GK; got it
19:20:31 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
19:26:29 <IlkayAltintas> t
19:26:55 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
19:26:57 <Luc> Scribe: TLebo
#19:27:14 <tlebo> scibe: me
19:27:22 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 4: Model TF
<luc> Summary: The definitions of concepts "process execution", "generation", "use", and "derivation" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document). 
19:27:30 <Luc> SUBTOPIC: Process Execution
19:28:34 <Zakim> +zednik
19:29:23 <tlebo>
19:29:59 <tlebo> BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription
19:30:01 <Deborah> restaurant -  - 1 Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02138 617-225-0888   (right sandro?)
19:30:15 <tlebo> we are NOT defining BOB in this sesssion
19:30:29 <sandro> right, Deborah 
19:30:48 <tlebo> q?
19:31:01 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
19:31:03 <sandro> reservation is under "W3C" for 21 people (18 of us, and 3 additional family members)
19:31:20 <tlebo>
19:31:22 <JimMcCusker> For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology:
19:32:46 <tlebo> rephrased definition of process execution: A process execution is an activity that uses (zero or more) entities in specific states,  described by BOBs, performs a piece of work, and generates (zero or more) new entities in specific states, described by BOBS.
19:33:17 <Paulo> q+
19:33:30 <zednik> q+
19:33:58 <stain> q+
19:34:09 <tlebo> jimmc: can we NOT imply agency in the process?
19:34:15 <Luc> q?
19:35:07 <tlebo> q+ does the working def infer agency?
19:35:30 <Luc> q?
19:36:11 <tlebo> paulo: fundamental issues. e.g. "generate" making new entities w/o specifying the process (recipe?) used.
19:36:17 <Luc> ack Paulo
19:36:36 <tlebo> paulo: process of asserting or deriving or both or neither?
19:38:04 <tlebo> I am trying to track provenance of the pages discussing concepts at
19:38:23 <tlebo> q+ to ask about managing our page creation
19:38:57 <Luc> q?
19:40:06 <Luc> ack zednik
19:40:16 <tlebo> zednik: ask to clarify producing 0 or more entities' states (new BOBs describing a previous Entity)
19:40:32 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
19:40:42 <zednik> new bobs?
19:40:45 <GK> I think entity::BOB relationship is n::m
19:40:45 <stain> yes
19:40:51 <satya> a general comment (following on Stephan's comment): Do we lose any information if we remove the "state" and "Bob"  from the current definition?
19:40:54 <Luc> q?
19:40:56 <GK> Or may be
19:41:02 <zednik> q-
19:41:03 <Luc> ack stain
19:41:36 <Luc> ack tlebo
19:41:36 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about managing our page creation
19:41:38 <tlebo>
19:42:07 <tlebo> q-
19:43:00 <tlebo> existing issue 1 - It should be understood that, in the definition, use, perform a piece of work, and generate do not have to be performed sequentially, e.g. some generate can happen before some use 
19:43:13 <Luc> q?
19:43:37 <stain> slightly louder please :)
19:44:01 <stain> q+
19:44:17 <tlebo> we will be louder
19:44:26 <satya> q+
19:44:36 <Luc> q?
19:44:38 <tlebo> ordering of use and generation - any order is acceptable?
19:44:49 <pgroth> ack stain
19:45:08 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
19:45:17 <tlebo> stain: compound processes - this is needed.
19:45:20 <Luc> q?
19:45:38 <tlebo> we need to compose (and abstract) processes.
19:45:44 <Luc> ack satya
19:46:48 <tlebo> satya: orig def included state as part of the Stuff. Now that we have Entities described by BOBs. BOBs are not changing.
19:47:09 <tlebo> satya: just leave it at generating BOBs?
19:47:23 <stain> yes - it uses an entity (in such a state) as described by the BOB
19:47:32 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
19:47:42 <stain> but just talking about BOBs avoids us having to disassemble the BOBs every time its used
19:47:44 <zednik> +1 to BOBS as input/output
19:48:03 <tlebo> luc: processes to not generate BOBs; they generate entities that are described by BOBs.
19:48:06 <stain> perhaps the BOB is more like a proxy than a description
19:48:28 <GK> I've lost the plot: how cab BOBs be input?
19:48:29 <Luc> q?
19:48:29 <stain> like a smart query in itunes
19:48:34 <tlebo> -1 BOBs at I/O - I/O is Entities that can be described by BOBs.
19:48:53 <Luc> q?
19:49:06 <stain> if Bob is to be useful it needs to be standing instead of the entity - otherwise everything is just "entity as described by a bob"
19:49:13 <zednik> if entities is I/O, then why even have BOB?
19:49:30 <GK> @tlebo: +1 (BOBs not I/O of process execution?)
19:49:38 <tlebo> paulo: Recipe. Process Execution is an execution of a Recipe.
19:50:09 <tlebo> q+ to ask if BOBs on output end are optional
19:50:44 <stain> @tlebo - when I summarised process execution I said 0-or-more both for inputs and outputs
19:50:59 <tlebo> Recipe vs. Reproducible
19:51:01 <stain> (the process might act as an agent instead, or just be very lonely)
19:51:25 <RyanGolden> RyanGolden has joined #prov
19:51:37 <stain> what is the decission?
19:51:53 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE1 is done.
19:52:46 <tlebo> proposed issue PE2 - A process execution should be associated with an actor. (Proposed by Jun on 2011-05-31) 
19:53:08 <Luc_> Luc_ has joined #prov
19:53:09 <tlebo> proposed: Process Execution issue PE3 - A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31) 
19:53:26 <GK> Issue PE3: why does this matter?
19:53:36 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
19:53:39 <tlebo> paulo: predefined recipe vs. unspecified recipe
19:53:51 <Zakim> +??P2
19:54:01 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
19:54:23 <tlebo> recipe is nameable/unnamed, repeatable/unrepeatable, specified/unspecified.
19:54:31 <tlebo> q-
19:54:37 <stain> Zakim, ??P2 is me
19:54:37 <Zakim> +stain; got it
19:56:41 <tlebo> jimmccusker: recipes are specified as a Recipe role of a process execution.
19:56:52 <Paolo_> q?
19:57:17 <GK> Why do we need recipe in  our vocabulary?
19:58:00 <tlebo> luc: revisiting - distinction between process execution and process specification
19:58:37 <tlebo> luc: specifying a recipe is out of scope for wg (recipe ~= process specification)
19:58:41 <Paolo_> @gk we don't. We are pointing out that it is out of scope of the wg
19:58:54 <tlebo> paulo: this will make it harder to formalize
19:59:19 <GK> "We describe process executions independently of how the process is specified" - what more is needed?
19:59:20 <Paolo_> I mean, it is a sort of undefined term for us. A placeholder that will not be resolved...?
20:00:25 <tlebo> paulo: need to define work, activity, recipe. specification of process execution is in terms of recipe.
20:00:28 <stain> @GK - agreed
20:00:42 <tlebo> q+ to ask if the spec has to be pre-defined or can be described after the fact. (e.g. luc running around the room)
20:00:57 <tlebo> paulo: rebuilding what was done.
20:01:21 <tlebo> luc: workflow script is a kind of recipe.
20:01:49 <Paolo_> For those back home: Luc just went for a quick jog around the room...
20:01:55 <stain> ;-))
20:03:00 <pgroth> q?
20:03:20 <tlebo> we are trying to distinguish 1) process execution and 2) process specification
20:03:24 <Luc> q?
20:05:37 <tlebo> action: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group.
20:05:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-13].
20:05:42 <Luc> q?
20:06:08 <tlebo> q?
20:07:45 <tlebo> tlebo: concerned about "pre-defined" - can the recipe be described after the process execution has occurred and been described?
20:08:08 <stain> what if we just say 'defined' ? 
20:08:22 <GK> As stated, issue PE3 looks like a content-free assertion.  I'm not sure what value it adds.
20:08:26 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE3. A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31) 
20:08:53 <tlebo> (my post-description concern is handled in "or not" situation)
20:09:06 <tlebo> resolved issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20) 
20:09:12 <tlebo> resolved: issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20) 
20:09:52 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #prov
20:09:56 <tlebo> q-
20:10:10 <tlebo> proposed: issue PE5 A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20) 
20:10:14 <Luc> q?
20:10:21 <Vinh_> Vinh_ has joined #prov
20:10:42 <stain> A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20)
20:10:44 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
20:10:54 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
20:11:22 <Luc> q?
20:11:23 <tlebo> gk: getting around everything in the past.
20:11:24 <satya> q+
20:11:59 <tlebo> jimmccusker: process execution is a closed world. no other inputs/outputs can be added.
20:12:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
20:12:04 <tlebo> group said no!
20:12:12 <Luc> q?
20:12:15 <Luc> ack satya
20:12:16 <tlebo> gk: it is not going to CHANGE (in/outs)
20:12:45 <tlebo> group is not comfortable with all in/outs being fully specified.
20:12:47 <GK> We had said in/out s are fully known, but that didn't work...
20:12:50 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
20:12:53 <tlebo> @gk - you're typing
20:12:53 <stain> GK - mute
20:12:54 <GK> ... hence tried "determined"
20:13:01 <stain> we can hear your typing mood :)
20:13:05 <GK> muted
20:13:26 <zednik> q+
20:14:05 <Paulo> q+
20:14:10 <satya> q-
20:14:54 <Luc> ack kha
20:14:55 <smiles> q+
20:15:03 <tlebo> gk: most of time saying in past is OK. but may lead to issues.
20:15:26 <GK> I'm uneasy about forcing process execution into the past ... think it could trip us up, not sure why.
20:15:52 <Luc> ack zed
20:15:53 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: a currently running process execution may continue to take new inputs and produce new outputs after a user asks about it.
20:16:33 <GK> "A potential futiure event is not an occurrent" - is this true?
20:16:44 <Luc> q?
20:16:56 <zednik> definition I used: "actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical."
20:17:00 <tlebo> zednik: if process execution is an occurrent, then it must have started (but not nec. finished). must NOT be planned for future.
20:17:06 <zednik> from new oxford american dictionary
20:17:13 <zednik> q-
20:17:20 <Luc> ack paul
20:17:25 <tlebo> paulo: we've learned that many restrictions are relaxed as a language is applied to other situations.
20:17:29 <pgroth> q+
20:17:42 <tlebo> paulo: e.g. provenance of greek vase
20:18:09 <tlebo> paulo: what about an unknown process that we still want to describe?
20:18:28 <zednik> q+
20:18:54 <tlebo> group disagrees with "fully determined"
20:18:58 <Luc> q?
20:19:10 <Luc> ack smiles
20:19:20 <GK> I also think "fully determined" doesn't cut it.  So +1
20:19:38 <tlebo> smiles: do we lose anything by NOT saying that it has to be in the past?
20:19:47 <tlebo> satya: MUST be in past.
20:20:14 <JimMcCusker> +1 on Stephan's proposal: Process Execution is an occurrent, and therefore must have started in the past relative to the provenance assertion.
20:20:22 <tlebo> smiles: putting it into the definition limits us. leave it for the primer "provenance is about things in the past"
20:21:01 <tlebo> satya: provenance metadata vs. other types of metadata. only distinction is that provenance is past. Must put it into definition of process execution.
20:21:03 <zednik> q-
20:21:11 <tlebo> smiles: then put "past" into all definitions?
20:21:14 <zednik> q+
20:22:37 <Luc> all assertions in PIL have to be interpreted as something that has happened
20:22:42 <tlebo> resolved: GK's phrasing of process execution not satisfactory. change 1, change 2 (zednik) must not be planned for future, must have started. change 3 (luc et al.)
20:23:06 <tlebo> pgroth: yo .... dude ... 
20:23:28 <Luc> q?
20:23:32 <Luc> ack pgroth
20:24:05 <tlebo> zednik: by using occurrent - then it may not be finished that makes output in real time that we want to encode. we can't say outputs are fully determined.
20:24:16 <tlebo> pgroth: occurrent approach or provenance "has happened, in past"
20:24:28 <Luc> q?
20:24:32 <tlebo> zeknik: occurrent is not too constraining
20:24:36 <Luc> ack zed
20:24:36 <satya> @stephan - can you please confirm that occurrent definition as you described is from oxford dictionary - since the common interpretation of occurrent in philosophical ontology work - BFO and DOLCE does not specify anything regarding it being in the past
20:24:44 <tlebo> s/zeknik/zednik/
20:25:01 <tlebo> luc: "occurrent' is very technical.
20:25:03 <zednik> occurrent |əˈkərənt|
20:25:03 <zednik> adjective
20:25:03 <zednik> actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical.
20:25:06 <GK> A process execution has is associated with specific (but maybe unknown) inputs and outputs.  Alternative inputs and outputs are not an option.  ??
20:25:09 <tlebo> luc: we are failing by not keeping the term simple.
20:25:11 <pgroth> q?
20:25:27 <tlebo> luc: push "occurrent' further down in the definition.
20:25:53 <zednik> has or is
20:26:05 <tlebo> satya: use definition of occurrent instead of stating "occurrent' in the definition.
20:26:19 <GK> Usually, I think provenance *is* about things that *have* happened, but I worry about formalizing that intent.
20:26:20 <tlebo> pgroth: "happened in the past" is a given in what we are describing.
20:27:14 <tlebo> proposed: add statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions."
20:28:45 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE5 is subsumed by statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions."
20:29:25 <tlebo> satya: getting incorrect inferences.
20:29:38 <tlebo> pgroth: constraints can be imposed in the semantics.
20:29:39 <GK> E.g. A test suite for a provenance generating system must necessarily contains statements of provenance about things that will be computed in the future.
20:29:48 <stain> so I would not be allowed to 'fake-run' a workflow and generate a PIL provenance trace of what the provenance would look like? The asserter is here not observing, but predicting. (It might still be to guess what the non-recorded provenance of a previously ran workflow was)
20:29:51 <tlebo> proposed: issue PE6: If we adopt an “OS Style” process model, then a distinction needs to be made between process specification, process, which is an instance of a process specification, and process execution, which is the state of a process with in a time interval, when the activities specified in the process specification take place. This may have been resolve
20:30:39 <tlebo> resolved by the agreement above, where the distinction is partially made (process spec vs process exec), and it was decided that process spec == recipe is out of scope. I will not insist on process (Paolo) 
20:30:57 <Luc> q?
20:31:27 <GK> What is "OS level provenance"?
20:31:52 <tlebo> what is the OS provenance group's name?
20:31:58 <tlebo> at Harvard?
20:32:03 <smiles> @tlebo PASS
20:32:03 <IlkayAltintas>
20:32:14 <tlebo> resolved: issue PE6 is dropped.
20:32:25 <smiles> @GK how files are created, used etc. by OS processes
20:32:27 <tlebo> subtopic: Generation
20:32:54 <GK> @smiles OK, thanks.
20:34:13 <tlebo> satya: did not include "modification" in process execution.
20:34:21 <stain> a modification is generating a new bob
20:34:46 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
20:35:05 <tlebo> Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process  execution creates a new entity state.
20:35:06 <tlebo> proposed: Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process  execution creates a new entity state.
20:35:45 <GK> s/entity state/entity/
20:36:05 <tlebo> luc: the only way to describe entity state is via BOBs
20:36:25 <ericP> q+ to ask why multiple states
20:36:36 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: process execution without entity states? group - yes. 0 or more.
20:37:11 <tlebo> paulo: database queried that does not modify database.
20:37:44 <GK> We have a definition here that mentions "entity states", but I don't know what that is distinct from an "entity"
20:37:44 <stain> then database was used, and query result was generated
20:38:03 <stain> @GK I think entity state means Bob - but not sure
20:38:14 <stain> I think that might be our bob
20:38:20 <tlebo> BOB is a placeholder for how we are describing entitie states.
20:38:22 <zednik> @stain, I think so too.  entity state is our BOB
20:38:29 <GK> @stain: that doesn't work: BOB is a description of an entity
20:38:33 <tlebo> (was called Thing before today, which described Stuffs)
20:38:35 <stain> ARE YOU HIM?
20:39:09 <GK> I understood BOB to describe *entities*
20:39:09 <smiles> q+
20:39:13 <Luc> q?
20:40:22 <tlebo> proposal: generation issue # G1 - Whether generation should be modelled as a concept itself or as a relationship between concepts, such as a process execution and a thing. This issue is raised based on the initial definitions raised by Jun. However, Luc did raise that "Whether this is a concept or a relationship seems to me more relevant to the formalization o
20:40:58 <zednik> if it is a concept itself, what does it entail?  what are the properties/relationships associated with a Generation concept?
20:41:20 <zednik> q+
20:41:23 <stain> @GK: *I* think BOB is what allows us to talk about a certain entity state. So it's more like a proxy, symlink, smart query, view - when we say "BOB x is blah" it means "Entity e, within the description of BOB (the blue shirt in the office) - is blah
20:41:55 <stain> @zednik Agent, Process Execution, BOB
20:42:52 <tlebo> BOB a placeholder for Thing/Description/Characterization/EntityDescription/StateDescription
20:44:12 <tlebo> luc: issues on definitions are First In First Out.
20:44:42 <Deborah> +q
20:44:59 <Luc> q?
20:45:44 <tlebo> ericp: getting to new stateS. why plural?
20:46:31 <Luc> ack eri
20:46:31 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask why multiple states
20:46:40 <Luc> ack smiles
20:46:40 <tlebo> ericp: a process can influence the states of one or more thing.
20:46:45 <tlebo> smiles: should be a relation, not a concept.
20:47:09 <tlebo> smiles: generation should be defined in terms of process execution
20:47:40 <pgroth> q+ to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP
20:47:51 <tlebo> luc: want to relate events to one another.
20:47:59 <stain> it was raised on the mailing list that one want to stop somewhere. I don't want to specify how my file system driver found the right sectors on the disk - but might want to talk about what was generated in the end.
20:48:32 <tlebo> Generation is a time constraint on process execution/ activity.
20:49:32 <tlebo> (events and activities? are these synonyms for the True concepts?)
20:50:15 <Luc> q?
20:50:18 <tlebo> smiles: temporal ordering of process executions helps avoid Activities Generation Events.
20:50:45 <Luc> ack zednik
20:50:56 <tlebo> zednik: repeating smiles Generation overlapping with Process Execution.
20:50:57 <zednik> q-
20:51:03 <stain> q+
20:51:04 <Luc> ack qweb
20:51:42 <tlebo> deborah: where do we place new issues? place it onto after/during F2F meeting.
20:52:16 <Luc> q?
20:53:50 <tlebo> pgroth: relationship in natural language vs. formal languages.
20:54:17 <GK> I think the formal term here is "relation"
20:54:47 <stain> +1 - we don't want to say it's NOT a concept. 
20:54:47 <tlebo> pgroth: conceptual relationship vs. modeling it as a Concept/Relationship in a logical model of your choice.
20:54:55 <zednik> conceptual relationship does not entail rdf:Property
20:55:09 <stain> I think if we agree on this, then we can say it's a relationship
20:55:19 <GK> (In RDF formal semantics, a property has an associated relation over pairs of concepts from the domain of discourse.)
20:55:33 <tlebo> luc: what does a conceptual relationship?
20:55:51 <stain> @Paolo: Exactly - so it can't just be dangling alone which is my worry
20:55:53 <tlebo> paolo: relationship depends on other primary concepts. (mathematically)
20:56:17 <tlebo> (rdf:Property is a good smiley)
20:56:41 <Luc> ack pgroth
20:56:41 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP
20:56:44 <tlebo> paolo: relation does not stand on it's own.
20:57:13 <Luc> q?
20:57:51 <Luc> q?
20:58:14 <tlebo> smiles: does not use Event/Transition; just describe relationships among the entities.
20:58:44 <Luc> q?
20:58:48 <Luc> ack stain
20:59:03 <GK> Generation can quite reasonably be a relation between process executions and entities.
20:59:06 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
20:59:59 <GK> But *instances* of a relation can be reified.
21:00:15 <tlebo> pgroth: Generation as a proxy for Event.
21:00:47 <GK> ... as members of a class that might be caled "Events".  I think there is no dichotomy here.
21:02:06 <tlebo> pgroth: main concern of group is that Generation is being confused with Process Execution.
21:02:19 <JimMcCusker> +q
21:03:43 <Luc> q?
21:04:04 <GK> I think the definitions are dual.
21:04:52 <stain> I don't see why two definitions can't refer to each-other.. in fact if they don't, then you might wander what makes PIL a model/language instead of just a vocabulary
21:06:31 <smiles> @stain I agree there's no absolute reason why not, but still it can make the definitions simpler to refer to less other things that need to be looked up
21:06:32 <tlebo> q+
21:07:07 <Paolo_> @stian they seem to be redundant in the way they overlap.... 
21:07:17 <stain> strip one of them down then
21:07:19 <Luc> q?
21:07:25 <Paolo_> New version just came up on the page. Still under discussion
21:07:33 <stain> wich page?
21:08:35 <Luc> q?
21:08:47 <Luc> ack Jim
21:09:03 <smiles> @stain
21:09:31 <tlebo> process execution: 0..* ins, a middle, 0..* outs
21:09:42 <tlebo> ... generation: a middle and 1 out
21:09:56 <tlebo> (will get to) use: 1 in and a middle
21:11:15 <Luc> q?
21:12:57 <tlebo> why isn't a "use" and "generation" a process execution missing some bits?
21:14:41 <JimMcCusker> +q
21:14:49 <pgroth> ack telco
21:14:54 <Luc> ack tlebo
21:14:57 <pgroth> ack Jim
21:14:58 <Luc> ack Jim
21:15:12 <stain> @tlebo +1
21:15:23 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
21:18:38 <satya> q+
21:19:10 <satya> q-
21:19:23 <pgroth> q?
21:19:28 <stain> I think we might need to talk about Collections or composition when talking about multiple processes generating one entity state
21:20:00 <tlebo> resolved: issue G1; we have new definitions
21:20:37 <tlebo> resolved: all generation issues.
21:21:15 <Luc> q?
21:21:16 <tlebo> proposed: use issue U1: For a thing X to be used by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion):      X was generated before its use     Use occurs after P's beginning and before P's end 
21:22:02 <tlebo> ... use: Use is the consumption of an entity state by a process execution.
21:22:14 <tlebo> can we consume entityStates multiple times?
21:22:22 <Luc> q?
21:22:23 <tlebo> PDFs don't get consumed by being printed.
21:22:41 <tlebo> "involved"
21:22:42 <tlebo> ?
21:23:36 <zednik> does consumption imply "using up" or destroying the BOB?
21:23:45 <stain> 'consumed' also sounds like it's the whole thing.. so what about Paolo's database example?
21:23:52 <tlebo> (btw, BOB is leading to be renamed EntityState)
21:24:00 <stain> tlebo: YAAY
21:24:05 <zednik> consumption |kənˈsəm(p) sh ən|
21:24:05 <zednik> noun
21:24:05 <zednik> 1 the using up of a resource
21:24:24 <Luc> q?
21:25:03 <tlebo> q+ to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume.
21:25:19 <stain> what if we say something like "utilised (as e.g. input, source) by process execution"
21:25:29 <stain> @tlebo - soudns very active - like the agent
21:25:34 <stain> who is involved iwth the PE
21:25:47 <tlebo> not sure why "involves" implies agency.
21:25:58 <tlebo> my keyboard involves this text string.
21:26:08 <tlebo> (other way around)
21:26:19 <tlebo> this text string involves my keyboard.
21:26:23 <stain> do you involve your car when going to work? It's not like you ask if it wants to come along. 
21:26:35 <tlebo> I'd say "use" implies too much agency.
21:26:45 <JimMcCusker> I think we made "participate" the top level relation, which subsumes "use" and "consume".
21:26:50 <satya> q?
21:26:51 <stain> @tlebo - oo.. I.. agree
21:27:01 <tlebo> q+ to ask that we use the q
21:27:05 <satya> q+
21:27:16 <zednik> @JimMcCusker participate was top level for agents
21:27:32 <JimMcCusker> right
21:27:34 <JimMcCusker> sorry
21:27:48 <Luc> q?
21:28:03 <Luc> ack tlebo
21:28:03 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume. and to ask that we use the q
21:28:22 <zednik> @JimMcCusker consumed was specialization of used (and implied destruction)
21:28:40 <Luc> ack satya
21:28:48 <tlebo> q-
21:28:59 <zednik> @JimMcCusker we also had influenced...
21:29:04 <stain> @tlebo 'involves' would allow for a process execution to also involve a recipe/perl script, etc. (might be good - but less specific than use)
21:29:22 <tlebo> satya: EntityState to exist for Process Execution to happen?
21:29:36 <IlkayAltintas> +q
21:30:22 <stain> +1 +1 +1
21:30:28 <stain> we're recording what DID happen
21:31:01 <tlebo> what is @stain +1'ing?
21:31:02 <satya> q-
21:31:22 <tlebo> which entity was used to generate which entity is lost.
21:31:27 <Paolo_> q+
21:31:31 <Luc> ack Ilk
21:32:09 <tlebo> issue: we lose which entity was used to generate which entity.
21:32:09 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - We lose which entity was used to generate which entity. ; please complete additional details at .
21:32:29 <Luc> ack Pao
21:33:35 <tlebo> issue: create definition of involve to replace Use
21:33:35 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-23 - Create definition of involve to replace Use ; please complete additional details at .
21:35:14 <Luc> q?
21:35:47 <Luc> q?
21:36:04 <tlebo> paolo: we should have a collection of Use, Involves - not a replacement.
21:37:43 <satya> q+
21:39:10 <Luc> q?
21:39:37 <Paolo_> q+
21:39:50 <tlebo> proposed: Generation issue # G2 - Should we also mention in the definition that, for a thing X to be generated by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion):      X must be something that did not exist before generation time (this means that nothing had the thing's identity before that time)     generation occurs after P's beginning and be
21:40:44 <ericstephan_> ericstephan_ has joined #prov
21:40:50 <Luc> q?
21:40:56 <Luc> ack satya
21:41:34 <tlebo> (how did we get back to Generation issues? I thought we skipped them intentionally)
21:42:17 <tlebo> paolo: functional flavor of Generation issue 2.3 P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict) 
21:42:39 <tlebo> resolved Generation 2.3 is too strong P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict)
21:42:39 <GK> I need to break off now.  See/hear you tomorrow.
21:42:40 <smiles> @tlebo we intended to skip just subpoints 2.1 and 2.2 (not 2.3 and 2.4)
21:42:47 <stain> GK - nightie!
21:42:58 <GK> GK has left #prov
21:43:03 <Luc> thanks Graham
21:43:06 <Luc> q?
21:43:07 <Zakim> -GK
21:43:08 <Paulo> q+
21:43:11 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
21:43:16 <Luc> ack Paolo
21:43:25 <tlebo> proposed: Generation issue G2.4
21:43:36 <tlebo> P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)
21:44:01 <Luc> q?
21:44:02 <Satya> Satya has joined #prov
21:44:04 <Luc> ack paul
21:45:23 <tlebo> luc: process execution or entities that went into process execution can be used to understand aspect of an entitystate output
21:45:58 <tlebo> open world assumption of describing the process execution or inputs.
21:46:06 <Luc> q?
21:47:04 <Luc> q?
21:47:21 <tlebo> issue: semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)"
21:47:21 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-24 - Semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)" ; please complete additional details at .
21:49:00 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
#21:53:39 <Zakim> -stain.a
21:54:13 <Zakim> -stain
<luc>Subtopic: Derivation
21:56:59 <tlebo> proposed: Derivation expresses that some entity is transformed from, created from, or affected by an other entity.   An entity state B is derived from an entity state A if the values of some properties of B are at least  partially determined by the values of some properties of A.
21:57:26 <tlebo> smiles: some connection needs to be there.
21:59:23 <tlebo> jcheney: SOME values need to overlap across EntityStates connected with a Derivation.
21:59:25 <Paulo> q+
22:01:07 <tlebo> issue: semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2
22:01:07 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-25 - Semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2 ; please complete additional details at .
22:01:30 <tlebo> proposed: Derivation issue # D3 Does derivation include control dependency? If so, is this reflected in this definition
22:03:15 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: A, B, threshold example.
22:03:20 <tlebo> luc: division example.
22:04:05 <tlebo> determined by the presence of a value that does NOT affect it's result
22:04:19 <Luc> q?
22:04:28 <tlebo> triggered execution but not involved (did not influence it's result other than starting it)
22:04:42 <tlebo> "triggering" is a kind of "use"
22:05:18 <Luc> q?
22:05:19 <tlebo> smiles: represent it with an invariant property
22:05:46 <zednik> q+
22:05:47 <tlebo> ice sculpture example.
22:05:53 <Luc> q?
22:05:58 <tlebo> photo of ice sculpture
22:06:13 <tlebo> ice sculpture does not exist, but is relevant to the derivation of the photo.
22:07:12 <tlebo> paulo: redundancy of something-already-used.   derived from something can be inferred from knowing the process execution (~)
22:07:29 <Luc> q?
22:07:33 <Luc> ack Paulo
22:08:12 <tlebo> smiles derived from Louis XIV
22:09:48 <tlebo> luc: derivation is trying to describe the info flow within the black box of the process execution.
22:10:05 <pgroth> q?
22:10:09 <zednik> q-
22:10:46 <tlebo> luc: an output may have been created before the input to the process was used.
22:11:33 <zednik> q+
22:11:55 <Luc> q?
22:12:48 <tlebo> satya: apples and oranges. some want to describe the same thing from either of two perspectives.
22:13:09 <Luc> q?
22:13:11 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
22:13:31 <tlebo> knowing the relationship between inputs and outputs VS NOT knowing the relationship.
22:13:59 <Luc> q?
22:14:08 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
22:14:26 <tlebo> zednik: example - sci process that reads docs in directory, new file for each found and craeting arvhive file of all files it read. 500 files at a time.
22:14:37 <tlebo> model 500 or model 1
22:14:39 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
22:14:45 <tlebo> scientists don't care about 500 process executions.
22:14:56 <tlebo> "procedure they understand" 500 in 500 out
22:14:58 <Deborah> q?
22:15:07 <Deborah> q+ (deborah)
22:15:07 <tlebo> but we lose the derivation from one of the 500 to one of the 500.
22:15:38 <tlebo> paulo: figuring out what went wrong when it went wrong.
22:15:57 <tlebo> pgroth: people kind of like derivation notions (we've seen from experience)
22:16:16 <JimMcCusker> FYI, it's 6:15
22:16:21 <tlebo> pgroth: some people like talking about process executions (a different perspective)
22:16:26 <Luc> q?
22:16:27 <tlebo> +1 6:15
22:16:29 <zednik> q-
22:16:35 <Luc> ack zednik
22:17:45 <tlebo> deborah: w.r.t paulo's derivation issue. we don't need any particular granularity. we should permit any granularity. people want to see the provenance at differing granularities.
22:17:57 <Paulo> q+
22:18:21 <tlebo> luc: @paulo re redundancy.
22:18:40 <tlebo> paulo: use and Generates are not nec. the way they are b/c they need more specific meanings towards Derivation.
22:19:13 <tlebo> luc: some have process view of word, some have derivation view of the world.
22:19:22 <tlebo> use/generation is the process view.
22:19:36 <tlebo> derivation connects the data
22:19:48 <tlebo> luc: knowing inputs and outputs DOES NOT imply derivation.
22:20:23 <zednik> +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality
22:20:39 <JimMcCusker> +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality
22:21:31 <tlebo> paulo: scientists do not know the process of how things are created, but they want to have process about the data.
22:21:55 <tlebo> people like processes, some like data views
22:22:41 <tlebo> jcheney: children building rockets need calculus - if they want to learn rocket building learn calculus.
22:23:24 <tlebo> luc: PASS harvard knows the processes and inputs but DO NOT know the derivation among the ins and outs.
22:25:15 <tlebo> derivation is defined independently of inputs and outputs (by design)
22:25:59 <pgroth> q?
22:26:25 <pgroth> ack de
22:26:35 <pgroth> ack (deborah)
22:26:39 <pgroth> ack Paulo
22:27:00 <JimMcCusker> If you want to find out what process was used to derive b from a, given that b derived from a, look for a process that has a as an input and b as an output.
22:27:13 <tlebo> paulo: dataset interpolated to get uniform distribution of the data.
22:27:28 <tlebo> a parameter is used and affects the interpolation
22:27:31 <zednik> definition of dataset is not consistent among science communitites
22:28:26 <tlebo> process view does NOT say output depends on inputs. THEN assert derivation associating the interpolation to the input data and the parameter.
22:28:44 <tlebo> (is there a Recipe on a Derivation?)
22:29:41 <JimMcCusker> no, but you can look up what recipe was used as such in a process that has the inputs and outputs that were derived from each other.
22:29:48 <Luc> Time to go to the restaurant!!!
22:30:03 <Luc> topic of discussion:
22:30:35 <ericstephan> ericstephan has left #prov
22:31:04 <tlebo> rrsagent, set log public
22:31:09 <tlebo> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:31:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate tlebo
22:31:14 <tlebo> trackbot, end telcon
22:31:14 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
22:31:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.715.aaaa, Meeting_Room, stain, zednik, GK, [ISI], Lena, +1.561.216.aadd, +1.858.210.aaee
22:31:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:31:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
22:31:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in :
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [1]
22:31:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report [2]
22:31:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire. [3]
22:31:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [4]
22:31:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in