From Provenance WG Wiki
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceConcepts 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf 13:25:11 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov 13:25:22 <sandro> WEBCAM IS UP. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam 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 - http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/att-0017/ModelTaskForce_F2F1.pptx ? 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:Discussed_at_F2F1 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts#Thing 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptThing 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 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: http:www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 16:25:30 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 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 - http://vacommunity.org/AnalyticProvenanceWorkshop 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 http://inference-web.org/wiki/Review_of_prov-xg%27s_Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:ITCTF_F2F1.pdf 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: http://goo.gl/rHxAg 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connection_Task_Force#Connections 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 - http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 19:29:59 <tlebo> BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription 19:30:01 <Deborah> restaurant - http://www.tommydoyles.com/ - 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts 19:31:22 <JimMcCusker> For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology: http://code.google.com/p/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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts 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> http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/syrah/pass/ 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 #20:32:29 <Luc> 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/22/edit . 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/23/edit . 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/24/edit . 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/25/edit . 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html trackbot 22:31:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 22:31:16 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-actions.rdf : 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.  22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-33-21 22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report  22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-43-16 22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire.  22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-44-14 22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group.  22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T20-05-37 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00001495