Chatlog 2012-06-07

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:48:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:48:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc
14:48:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:48:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:48:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:48:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:48:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:48:40 <trackbot> Date: 07 June 2012
14:48:44 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:48:44 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:02 <pgroth> Agenda:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.06.07
14:49:13 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:17 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:49:35 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Daniel Garijo
14:49:55 <pgroth> I need a scribe
14:49:59 <pgroth> anyone?
14:50:34 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:50:41 <Zakim> +??P5
14:51:56 <pgroth> scribe anyone?
14:54:31 <Zakim> +TomDN
14:54:36 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
14:54:48 <pgroth> tom can you scribe?
14:55:01 <TomDN> noone signed up?
14:55:05 <TomDN> sure
14:55:09 <pgroth> no :-(
14:55:13 <pgroth> thanks
14:55:23 <TomDN> np :)
14:55:26 <pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
14:55:37 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P5, TomDN
14:55:47 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P5 is me
14:55:47 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:57:02 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aaaa
14:57:24 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:25 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:58:01 <Zakim> -TomDN
14:58:01 <Luc> @paul, we need to draft the f2f2 agenda
14:58:32 <pgroth> @luc: yes. next week I'm "on vacation" visiting parents so will have time
14:58:48 <jun> jun has joined #prov
14:58:58 <Zakim> +TomDN
14:58:58 <Luc> @paul: OK
14:59:07 <TomDN> sorry, phone dropped off for a second there
14:59:44 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:49 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:59:52 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:33 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:46 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:00:48 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
15:00:49 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:49 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:50 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:04 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
15:01:09 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:01:09 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:01:09 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:01:16 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P30
15:01:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:01:48 <Zakim> +??P20
15:01:58 <Paolo> zakim, ??P20 is me
15:01:58 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:02:08 <stain> I'm in a meeting like GK and dgarijo, but I'll join when/if you come to collection
15:02:17 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:23 <stain> and follow the hasProvenanceIn discussion on the chat
15:02:25 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-31
15:02:30 <KhalidBelhajjame> KhalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:02:33 <pgroth> proposed Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:02:38 <TomDN> +1
15:02:42 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:44 <dgarijo> +1
15:02:46 <Curt> +1
15:02:48 <jcheney> 0 - missed it
15:03:02 <smiles> +1
15:03:07 <Paolo> 0 -- missed it
15:03:11 <Zakim> +??P39
15:03:27 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P39 is me
15:03:28 <Zakim> +KhalidBelhajjame; got it
15:03:31 <pgroth> accepted: Approved Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:03:44 <Zakim> +??P41
15:03:52 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov
15:04:01 <pgroth> sandro are you there?
15:04:07 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:04:09 <TomDN> pgroth: we confirmed that sandro sent the announcement to the mailing lists, and Graham has reviewed the constraints document
15:04:12 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:04:32 <pgroth> Topic: Definition of role
<pgroth> Summary: The working group had been discussing expanding the applicability of role on the mailing list. No consensus was reached. It was decided in the call to leave the definition as is.
15:05:05 <TomDN> pgroth: to summarize: we talked last week about expanding the definition of role
15:05:46 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:05:49 <TomDN> ... We tried to come to a revised definition during the week, that included both the object and subject of role
15:05:53 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:06:06 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:06:24 <satya> Zakim, GVoice is me
15:06:24 <Zakim> +satya; got it
15:06:27 <TomDN> ... No apparent consensus was reached
15:06:37 <pgroth> q?
15:06:37 <smiles> q+
15:06:46 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:07:29 <TomDN> smiles: In my email, I wasn't suggesting that we would drop 'role' and just have 'type'. 
15:07:46 <pgroth> q?
15:07:48 <TomDN> ... I would propose keeping what we had, I liked the definition of role
15:08:06 <TomDN> pgroth: What do you think about expanding the domain of role?
15:08:38 <pgroth> q?
15:08:41 <Luc> q+
15:08:49 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:08:56 <Zakim> +??P3
15:08:56 <TomDN> smiles: I don't have a strong objection to it, but I'm not quite sure what it imply
15:09:07 <MacTed> Zakim, mute ??p3
15:09:07 <Zakim> ??P3 should now be muted
15:09:50 <pgroth> q?
15:09:57 <Luc> q+
15:10:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:10:13 <TomDN> Luc: Simon's suggestion seems good. We could keep the current definition and make sure all documents are compatible with it
15:10:15 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:10:42 <TomDN> Luc: Would it cause a problem if you could not use roles in the Dictionary context?
15:10:58 <TomDN> tlebo: I would have to have an extention property
15:11:50 <Paolo> no objection
15:11:54 <pgroth> q?
15:11:56 <TomDN> pgroth: I think people just wanted to make role a bit more powerful, but were fine with the definition. Is there any objection to leaving role as it is?
15:12:04 <pgroth> q?
15:12:11 <Luc> @paul, for avoindance of doubt, can you record a resolution?
15:12:33 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:12:34 <pgroth> proposed: leave role as currently defined
15:12:37 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
15:12:42 <satya> +1
15:12:45 <Paolo> +1
15:12:48 <TomDN> +1
15:12:53 <jcheney> 0 - haven't been following but no objection
15:12:59 <SamCoppens> +1
15:13:21 <smiles> +1
15:13:24 <MacTed> +0
15:13:31 <CraigTrim> no objection
15:13:39 <pgroth> accepted: leave role as currently defined
15:13:55 <pgroth> Topic: Contextualization
<pgroth> Summary: The recent revision of the DM to deal with bundles introduced the notion of a provenance locator. An issue was raised about it's complexity. To address this issue, a construct of contextualization was introduced. This construct was discussed on the call and some clarifications were introduced. The conclusion was for the main discussion participants (Luc, Simon, Tim) to quickly come to a definition of contextualization to be included in the DM for review by the group.
15:14:19 <TomDN> pgroth: Luc, can you give an overview?
15:14:44 <TomDN> Luc: About a week ago, GK raised an issue that the provenance locator was too complex.
15:15:36 <TomDN> ... Reasons: Prov locator included things from the PAQ that would better not be mixed with the DM. THis was solved by removing these from the DM.
15:15:49 <pgroth> @sandro are you there?
15:16:08 <TomDN> ... A second objection was that it seemed as a special case of derivation, and it might be better to use things that we already have.
15:16:11 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:16:12 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:16:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, TomDN (muted), MacTed (muted), tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, ??P30, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, ??P41, satya, ??P3 (muted), Curt_Tilmes
15:16:15 <Zakim> TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens
15:16:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see satya, jun, zednik, stephenc, CraigTrim, KhalidBelhajjame, smiles, Paolo, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, jcheney, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, MacTed,
15:16:15 <Zakim> ... stain, trackbot, sandro
15:16:29 <TomDN> ... We looked at this during the weekend, and came up with above.
15:16:29 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html#term-contextualization
15:17:01 <TomDN> ... The idea is that a relation can be introduced that says that some thing is a contextualization of another thing.
15:17:24 <TomDN> ... Something that is a contextualization of another presents all aspects of the latter in a given context specified by descriptions found in a bundle. 
15:17:44 <pgroth> q?
15:17:56 <pgroth> q?
15:18:03 <TomDN> ... Discussion with tim and simon seems to be reaching consensus.
15:18:17 <pgroth> q?
15:18:28 <TomDN> ... In time, the provenance locator would disappear form prov DM, and the contextualization remains
15:18:37 <TomDN> s/form/from
15:19:15 <TomDN> pgroth: how does this relate to alternate/specialization?
15:19:48 <smiles> q+
15:19:56 <TomDN> Luc: difference with specialization is that contextualization looks at the aspects in a given context (bundle)
15:20:06 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:20:25 <Paolo> q+
15:20:33 <TomDN> smiles: At the moment it is a bit ambiguous
15:21:00 <TomDN> ... I suggest expressing contextualization as a relation between entity and bundle
15:21:20 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:21:30 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Paolo (10%)
15:21:30 <Luc> i couldn't understand simon
15:22:25 <TomDN> smiles: I don't have a problem with the current definition of contextualization, but changing the relationshi
15:22:40 <smiles> q+
15:22:43 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:22:53 <TomDN> ... to an entity-bundle relationship might help distinguishing it from specialization
15:23:57 <tlebo> contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to a "nonlocal" entity.
15:24:10 <TomDN> paolo: Is this as in importing provenance from a different bundle?
15:24:20 <pgroth> ack paolo
15:24:36 <TomDN> ... saying that "everything I say in that bundle about this entity, is also true in this bundle"
15:24:42 <Luc> bundle ex:run1     activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:00:00)  //duration: 1hour     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"]) endBundle 
15:24:59 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:25:44 <pgroth> q?
15:25:51 <TomDN> Luc: I think so (see example)
15:26:07 <TomDN> Paolo: this is close to what I had in mind
15:26:32 <tlebo> contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the  "nonlocal" entity.
15:27:02 <TomDN> Luc: it is not really "importing"
15:27:25 <TomDN> ... That is an implementation choice, but it is not specified anywhere.
15:27:39 <Paolo> ack 
15:27:46 <Paolo> q?
15:27:47 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:28:17 <Zakim> +??P12
15:28:24 <TomDN> smiles: In the current DM, we say that a bundle is a set of descriptions. There's no reason for that set not to be contradictory with other sets.
15:29:00 <TomDN> ... My concern is that with this contextualization, we seem to suggest that there is some sort of coherence.
15:29:55 <pgroth> +q
15:30:06 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:30:09 <pgroth> q?
15:30:24 <tlebo> q+ to propose the definition: contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the "nonlocal" entity.
15:30:29 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:30:31 <TomDN> Luc: It's not our aim to imply any consistency
15:30:45 <TomDN> smiles: OK, but then we should specify this clearly.
15:30:46 <pgroth> q+
15:30:47 <Zakim> -??P12
15:31:09 <TomDN> tlebo: proposes the above definition.
15:31:19 <tlebo> q-
15:32:11 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:32:13 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:32:28 <Zakim> +??P12
15:32:31 <satya> q+
15:32:42 <TomDN> pgroth: 1. How core is it to the model? 2. Are we close to a definition?
15:33:45 <TomDN> Luc: There are examples of where we need this construct. And currently there is no way to assert them.
15:33:53 <tlebo> BTW, my definition is paired up with the example that I focus on: tool:analysis01 {     tool:Bob1          prov:specializationOf [               a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;               prov:identifier  ex:Bob;               prov:inContext ex:run1;         ];     . }
15:34:25 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:34:26 <TomDN> ... I like Tim's definition, and can agree with Simon's suggestion. We hope to converge within a few days.
15:34:45 <tlebo> bundles don't change.
15:34:48 <TomDN> satya: What happens if the bundle is changed after a contextualization?
15:35:00 <TomDN> ... Does this propagate?
15:35:21 <tlebo> +1 @luc, if the bundle changes, then you have a new bundle.
15:35:24 <TomDN> Luc: If a bundle changes, it is another bundle
15:36:03 <TomDN> satya: So there is no way that we will link those "updated" bundles?
15:36:09 <tlebo> @satya, link a revised bundle to it's predecessor via PROV constructs specializationOf and wasRevisedFrom .
15:36:17 <TomDN> ... (as is often done in the Semantic Web)
15:36:33 <tlebo> bundles are not buckets, they are sets of assertions.
15:36:59 <pgroth> q?
15:37:01 <tlebo> we have ways to link the bundles -- existing PROV constructs.
15:37:23 <TomDN> @satya: indeed, the assertions don't change, just the bundle
15:38:03 <TomDN> Luc: See Tim's comment. 
15:38:22 <TomDN> ... I don't think we changed the semantics with this construct.
15:38:44 <TomDN> ... If you change a set of assertions, you need to give it a different name.
15:38:55 <satya> agent(tool:ratedBob1, [perf:rating="good"])
15:39:46 <TomDN> Luc:  It seems the concern is rather to the notion of bundle, than to contextualization? 
15:39:49 <TomDN> satya: yes
15:40:25 <tlebo> @satya where is "bundle consistency" proclaimed in PROV? bundles are just sets of assertions, regardless of consistency.
15:41:08 <tlebo> bundling assertions does not imply consistency.
15:41:36 <pgroth> q?
15:41:37 <TomDN> satya: Since it is included as an example with the definition, it seems to someone reading the definition without knowing the discussion, that we are implying some semantics
15:42:24 <pgroth> q?
15:42:24 <TomDN> pgroth: Since there seems to be some convergence to this construct, we should try to work toward a definition everyone agrees with via the mailing list
15:42:38 <pgroth> Topic: Collections
<pgroth> Summary: There were some concerns about the notion of completeness to do with collections. Tim proposed a revision to eliminate this notion because of possible concerns around the open world assumption. After discussion, it became clear that the assertion of completeness did not violate the open world assumption. Luc was actioned to add text making this clarification in the DM text.
15:42:41 <Paolo> (I'm afraid I am a lot more confused about this now than I was 1/2 hour ago...)
15:43:10 <Zakim> + +7.894.70.aacc
15:43:11 <TomDN> pgroth: Tim proposed some changes to Collections
15:43:22 <TomDN> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0133.html
15:44:10 <stainPhone> Zakim, +7.894.70.aacc is stain
15:44:19 <TomDN> tlebo: only changes that affect the DM:
15:44:21 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:44:29 <TomDN> ... - the notion of complete collection
15:44:32 <pgroth> q?
15:44:58 <TomDN> ... This optional attribute would be removed and changed to a domain extention
15:45:19 <TomDN> ... This is based on several concerns received about 'complete' Collections
15:45:36 <TomDN> ... in an open world
15:46:06 <pgroth> q?
15:47:02 <TomDN> Luc: Something more fundamental needs to be discussed...
15:47:28 <TomDN> ... Currently, we have a notion of empty Collection/Dictionary
15:47:36 <TomDN> ... and a notion of insertion
15:47:37 <Zakim> -satya
15:48:01 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:48:17 <TomDN> ... If you start with an empty Dictionary, and insert something, you have full knowledge about the Dictionary
15:48:27 <satya> Zakim, [GVoice] is satya
15:48:27 <Zakim> +satya; got it
15:48:30 <TomDN> ... Dito for removal
15:48:31 <pgroth> q?
15:49:03 <Zakim> -??P12
15:49:35 <TomDN> ... What we call a 'complete membership' when you are inserting into an empty Dictionary.
15:50:17 <pgroth> q?
15:50:18 <TomDN> ... The normal memberOf was added to allow insertion into an unspecified Dictionary
15:50:22 <pgroth> q?
15:50:42 <tlebo> FWIW, my work on Dictionary was centering around the example at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership/rdf/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership.ttl
15:51:02 <TomDN> pgroth: There's a difference between asserting that something is closed, and the thing actually being closed.
15:51:14 <tlebo> +1 pgroth
15:51:15 <pgroth> q?
15:51:30 <stainPhone> q+
15:51:39 <pgroth> ack stainPhone 
15:52:13 <tlebo> I'm using Paul's former to agree with keeping "completeness" in (asserting that something is closed). I'm ignoring his latter (the thing actually being closed).
15:53:07 <TomDN> (could you put your question on IRC stain? (sorry, missed it))
15:53:11 <stainPhone> Ok
15:53:51 <TomDN> Luc: what the model allows it that if you inserted e1 in d1, and that lead to d2.
15:54:08 <TomDN> ... you can still have that you insert something into d1, and that becomes d3
15:54:27 <pgroth> q?
15:55:09 <TomDN> pgroth: What is the conflict of what Tim proposes and the current DM?
15:55:20 <Paolo> q+
15:55:22 <stainPhone> I asked if dictionary insertions and removals are strictly functional, or if you could have both wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k1,v1)) and second wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k2,v2)) with additional key value pair
15:55:33 <stainPhone> Luc said that no, only one assertion. (right?)
15:55:35 <TomDN> Luc: not much. If we drop the attribute, we can still assert everything. We have the same expressivity
15:57:08 <KhalidBelhajjame> Yes Paolo, I remember the initial discussion
15:57:14 <pgroth> q?
15:57:18 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:57:23 <tlebo> FWIW, I've catalyzed this proposal for a variety of people. I've personally withdrawn my objections, but haven't heard others continuing to object.
15:57:53 <pgroth> q?
15:57:58 <TomDN> Paolo: This seems to go back to a previous discussion we had about the Open World assumption, and why we introduced the notion of completeness in the first place
15:58:03 <Zakim> -satya
15:58:10 <tlebo> yes, so I don't see anybody objecting.
15:58:16 <stainPhone> Who are they?
15:58:18 <Luc> who was objecting?
15:58:33 <pgroth> q?
15:58:38 <TomDN> pgroth: does anyone object to leaving it as it is now?
15:58:46 <TomDN> (silence)
15:58:47 <stainPhone> I'll pay them a visit! ;)
15:59:08 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:59:27 <Zakim> -??P3
15:59:28 <TomDN> pgroth: Maybe we should just put somewhere: "You can assert completeness, but you can never guarantee it"
15:59:40 <tlebo> +1 paul, we're asserting it and not guaranteeing it. This is what resolved my objection.
15:59:41 <pgroth> action: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness
15:59:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Add some text around collections to clarify completness [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-06-14].
15:59:46 <TomDN> Luc: will add some text for this.
16:00:12 <Paolo> well can you guarantee anything in provenance that you can express??
16:00:13 <KhalidBelhajjame> bye
16:00:15 <Zakim> -??P30
16:00:19 <Zakim> -KhalidBelhajjame
16:00:21 <Zakim> -Luc
16:00:23 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aabb
16:00:24 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:00:24 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:00:26 <TomDN> no prob :)
16:00:27 <pgroth> thanks tom
16:00:28 <Zakim> -stain
16:00:32 <Zakim> - +1.661.382.aaaa
16:00:33 <SamCoppens> bye
16:00:33 <Zakim> -[GVoice]
16:00:38 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:00:40 <Zakim> -??P41
16:00:41 <tlebo> bye!
16:00:42 <TomDN> @ Paolo: id say no, then it'd be called Trust
16:00:43 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:00:44 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:00:45 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:00:52 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:52 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:00:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TomDN, pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, SamCoppens, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, satya, stain,
16:00:55 <Zakim> ... [GVoice]
16:01:00 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:01:00 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:01:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:01 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-actions.rdf :
16:01:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness [1]
16:01:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc#T15-59-41
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000332