From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 15:53, 3 June 2011 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<luc>Guest: Yolanda Gil 14:43:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:43:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-irc 14:43:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:43:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:43:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:43:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:43:41 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011 14:43:54 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:43:54 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes 14:44:11 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02 14:44:19 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:44:26 <Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier 14:44:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:44:50 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Olaf Hartig, Eric Stephan 14:45:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:45:59 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011 14:52:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:52:12 <GK> GK has joined #prov 14:52:14 <Zakim> +luc 14:53:00 <frew> frew has joined #prov 14:53:08 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 14:54:17 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 14:55:44 <Zakim> +??P13 14:55:52 <Jmyers4> Jmyers4 has joined #prov 14:55:58 <smiles> zakim, ??P13 is me 14:55:58 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 14:55:59 <Zakim> +frew 14:57:24 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:57:52 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 14:58:09 <Zakim> +GK; got it 14:58:11 <Luc> Hi Stephen, welcome! 14:59:04 <kai> kai has joined #prov 14:59:28 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:59:42 <Zakim> +Yogesh 14:59:48 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:01:24 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 15:02:04 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:02:23 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 15:02:29 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 15:02:30 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:02:48 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02 15:02:54 <iker> iker has joined #prov 15:03:20 <DavidSchaengold> DavidSchaengold has joined #prov 15:04:59 <paolo> Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; Tim's outstanding action was closed, because not crucial currently, invited expert issues are still being resolved by the W3C, and all are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings. <luc>Subtopic: minutes 15:03:33 <frew> +1 minutes 15:03:34 <paolo> PROPOSED: accept minutes from previous conference call 15:03:36 <dgarijo> +1 15:03:37 <paolo> +1 15:03:39 <DavidSchaengold> +1 15:03:39 <tlebo> +1 15:03:39 <dcorsar> +1 15:03:40 <kai> +1 15:03:41 <Yogesh> + 15:03:44 <iker> +1 15:03:46 <Edoardo> +1 15:03:48 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:03:53 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:03:59 <jorn> +1 15:03:59 <GK> abstain (was present but not in audio) 15:04:09 <zednik> +1 15:04:13 <Jmyers4> +1 15:04:22 <smiles> +1 15:04:32 <Zakim> +zednik 15:04:45 <paolo> Accepted: minutes 15:04:59 <paolo> SubTopic: review of actions 15:05:47 <stain> stain has joined #prov <luc>SubTopic: Invited Experts 15:05:58 <paolo> Luc: invited experts -- not all experts on board yet 15:06:11 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:06:15 <paolo> Luc: calling for help from Sandro but he's not responding 15:06:27 <paolo> Luc: apologies for delay in dealing with experts 15:06:45 <paolo> Topic: F2F1 <luc>Summary: Please sign up for F2F meeting in Boston (or indicate regrets or online participation) and be ready to contribute to and review documents on the wiki. The deadline to produce documents for review is a week before F2F1 (June 29th) 15:06:47 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1 15:07:23 <paolo> Luc: please signal whether you can attend 15:07:40 <paolo> Luc: meeting objectives are set, docs will be produced and posted to the wiki 15:07:50 <dgarijo> I'll attend online to the f2f 15:08:23 <paolo> Luc: also indicate whether you will attend online 15:09:17 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces <luc>Topic: Launching Task Forces <luc>Summary: Four definition contributors (Khalid, Jun, Satya and Paolo) have been identified for the Model TF. Two coordinators (Yogesh and Simon Miles) have been identified for the Provenance Access and Query TF. And likewise, for the Connection Task Force (Eric S and Kai). Coordinators still need to be identified for the last TF. All coordinators have been asked to produce a delivery plan to be discussed at next telcon (See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10). 15:09:21 <paolo> Luc: we invited people to sign up to Task forces, some have not yet done so 15:10:01 <paulo> paulo has joined #prov 15:10:18 <paolo> Luc: Model task force: Jun, Satya, Khalid, Paolo have started adding their definitions on the wiki 15:10:22 <Zakim> -DavidSchaengold 15:10:23 <paolo> Luc: others please contribute 15:10:41 <GK> q+ to ask what it means to be a member of a TF beyond being member of this WG 15:10:46 <paolo> Luc: provenance access and query TF: Yogesh, Simon Miles have agreed to be coordinators 15:11:09 <paolo> Luc: Connection TF: Eric Stephan, Kai coordinate 15:11:32 <paolo> Luc: Implementation TF: still looking for confirmed coordinators 15:11:37 <tlebo> are the coordinators listed someplace other than http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces ? 15:12:21 <paolo> Graham: what does it mean to be a TF member wrt membership of group at large? 15:12:51 <paolo> Luc: TF membership involves active contributions + author/review docs 15:14:30 <paolo> Luc: roles and activities within a TF may vary, people can choose. This is to understand who the coordinators can expect to interact with 15:14:59 <paolo> Kai: need more contributors to the connection TF 15:15:49 <VinhNguyen> VinhNguyen has joined #prov 15:15:50 <paolo> Luc: TF3/4 -- possible model is: template to be produced by coordinators, contributors to fill in the template 15:16:28 <paolo> Luc: means that for these TF workload is expected to be very distributed 15:16:52 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov 15:16:56 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:17:32 <paolo> Luc: coordinators expected to propose a doc structure in the short term in view of the F2F. Outlines to be discussed in next week's telecon <luc> See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10 15:17:32 <frew> frew has joined #prov 15:18:21 <paolo> Yogesh: will work with Simon to get something ready for next week 15:19:02 <paolo> Luc: natural deadline is F2F meeting date, however one week review time would be good. This means end of June effective deadline 15:19:26 <paolo> Luc: actions will be created on each coordinator for doc outlines to be created 15:20:02 <jorn> already italized [sic] coords of TF3 15:20:15 <paolo> tlebo: are coordinators listed on the TF page? 15:20:24 <paolo> Luc: not yet, will do 15:21:17 <GK> @tlebo TF wiki page has space for coordinators: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces 15:21:22 <paolo> Topic: model task force <luc>Summary: The strategy is to reach consensus on concept properties from email and wiki discussions. Four proposals were put forward in the agenda. Three were discussed very constructively. We reached consensus on the first two. We were also converging towards consensus for the third proposal, but we run out of time. Actions were assigned to Satya, Kai and Jim (Action-6, Action-7,and Action-8) to formulate variants of the third proposal, to be debated by email and next week at the telcon. 15:22:02 <paolo> Luc: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-) 15:23:19 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:23:21 <paolo> Luc: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds 15:24:13 <paolo> Luc: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed 15:24:47 <paolo> Luc: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda 15:25:38 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 1: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time 15:25:40 <Jmyers4> +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model? 15:26:21 <paolo> Luc: soliciting comments on this 15:27:02 <paolo> GK: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time 15:27:33 <paolo> Luc: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both 15:27:55 <satya> I tend to agree with GK 15:28:21 <paolo> GK: sees common thread emerging 15:30:02 <paolo> jcheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately 15:30:03 <GK> Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later 15:30:40 <paolo> Luc: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess 15:31:27 <paolo> Luc: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model 15:32:16 <paolo> Luc: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later 15:33:09 <paolo> smiles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"? 15:33:54 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own 15:33:57 <GK> Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. 15:34:20 <stain> GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :) 15:34:31 <GK> q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. 15:34:40 <dgarijo> +1 to what satya said 15:34:42 <paolo> satya: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled more easily in the context of the example 15:35:18 <paolo> Luc: but, in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example 15:35:39 <zednik> +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access) 15:36:09 <jorn> q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time? 15:37:10 <paolo> Luc: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" debate 15:37:44 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. 15:37:46 <paolo> satya: propose to ask "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example 15:39:02 <paolo> GK: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident 15:40:04 <zednik> +1 for renaming resource 15:40:12 <paolo> jorn: term "resource" seems overloaded. so should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal 15:40:40 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time? 15:40:47 <paolo> Luc: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change" 15:41:05 <smiles> +1 15:41:07 <dgarijo> +1 15:41:13 <paolo> Luc: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks 15:41:17 <dcorsar> +1 15:41:17 <GK> +1 15:41:18 <Edoardo> +1 15:41:18 <dgarijo> +1 15:41:21 <jun> +1 15:41:21 <stain> +1 15:41:21 <kai> +1 15:41:22 <Yogesh> +1 15:41:23 <Luc> proposed: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks 15:41:24 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:41:24 <zednik> +1 15:41:24 <iker> +1 15:41:27 <jcheney> +1 15:41:27 <Jmyers4> +1 15:41:28 <paolo> +1 15:41:28 <jorn> +1 15:41:32 <tlebo> +1 15:42:24 <Yogesh> +1 15:43:32 <paolo> satya agrees with Luc's proposal in current subtopic <luc>ACCEPTED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks 15:43:51 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 2: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise 15:44:40 <paolo> frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done? 15:45:37 <paolo> GK: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, my position is to avoid simply adopting one of those models 15:47:08 <paolo> Luc: with my co-chair tat off, I note that not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, I do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways 15:47:38 <satya> agree 15:47:43 <smiles> yes 15:47:49 <paolo> proposed: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise" 15:47:53 <jcheney> +1 15:47:54 <GK> +1 15:47:56 <zednik> +1 15:47:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:47:59 <stain> +1 15:48:02 <smiles> +1 15:48:04 <paolo> the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise 15:48:04 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise 15:48:07 <dgarijo> +1 15:48:07 <Edoardo> +1 15:48:07 <dcorsar> +1 15:48:08 <satya> +1 15:48:08 <kai> +1 15:48:08 <Jmyers4> agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable 15:48:09 <jun> +1 15:48:10 <tlebo> +1 15:48:11 <jorn> +1 15:48:12 <Jmyers4> +1 15:48:13 <paolo> +1 15:48:15 <stain> +1 15:48:35 <YolandaGil> I wonder what category is "otherwise" 15:49:11 <Jmyers4> conceptual, logical 15:49:38 <GK> I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time 15:49:45 <paolo> YolandaGil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to? 15:50:35 <tlebo> anything to which one may want to refer. 15:50:53 <zednik> mutable? 15:50:56 <GK> Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition? 15:51:00 <paulo> in PML, we use the identifiedThing concept (something that we can refer to) 15:51:03 <paolo> YolandaGil: then, correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"? 15:51:13 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise 15:51:16 <Jmyers4> +1 15:51:22 <GK> +1 15:51:23 <satya> +! 15:51:24 <Yogesh> +1 15:51:25 <kai> +1 15:51:25 <stain> +1 15:51:26 <Edoardo> +1 15:51:26 <tlebo> +100 15:51:26 <dcorsar> +1 15:51:28 <smiles> +1 15:51:29 <frew> +1 15:51:29 <dgarijo> +1 15:51:29 <jorn> +1 15:51:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:51:31 <jcheney> +1 15:51:31 <zednik> +1 15:51:33 <YolandaGil> +1 15:51:38 <jun> +1 15:52:04 <paolo> accepted: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise 15:52:24 <paulo> if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to? 15:52:47 <GK> q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones 15:53:04 <paolo> Luc: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals 15:53:15 <jorn> q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system) 15:53:39 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change" 15:54:12 <paolo> GK: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement 15:54:26 <satya> +1 for GK's point 15:54:56 <paolo> satya: what do we mean by immutable things? 15:55:36 <GK> @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable. 15:56:35 <paolo> satya: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable 15:56:45 <GK> @satya, agree, focus on what's required 15:57:28 <paolo> Jmyers4: mutability leads to a number of special cases 15:57:37 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system) 15:58:57 <tlebo> is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach. 15:59:19 <satya> good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs) 15:59:39 <paolo> jorn: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model 15:59:44 <Jmyers4> I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability 16:00:14 <tlebo> must go. apologies. 16:01:40 <GK> I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to 16:02:50 <paolo> smiles: immutability may not be the issue 16:03:49 <GK> @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance" 16:04:19 <paolo> khalidbelhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions 16:04:37 <Jmyers4> if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources) 16:05:31 <paolo> paolo: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused 16:05:43 <frew> "WORM" resource? 16:05:52 <satya> I think we need more discussion - over mailing list? 16:05:55 <GK> Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed 16:05:59 <paolo> Luc: is there a consensus? 16:06:09 <Jmyers4> -1 - I'd like to discuss things together... 16:06:17 <jcheney> what's the formal proposal now? 16:07:04 <satya> Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object 16:07:19 <zednik> +q statement about mutability 16:07:37 <kai> I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning. 16:07:45 <paolo> satya: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example 16:08:25 <GK> @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to" 16:08:59 <paolo> Jmyers4: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion 16:09:00 <Luc> would it help if we said state of a thing 16:09:12 <Luc> instead of a thing that does not change 16:09:12 <dgarijo> even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion 16:09:16 <satya> @GK agree, if required for use case 16:10:32 <paolo> action: Jmyers4, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week 16:10:34 <Jmyers4> I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model 16:10:54 <Jmyers4> Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer... 16:11:28 <jorn> subject ? 16:11:34 <satya> entity? 16:11:37 <zednik> entity 16:11:42 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term 16:11:43 <kai> +1 for entity 16:11:51 <GK> "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)? 16:12:26 <paolo> +1 for "Subject of provenance" (SoP) 16:12:46 <dgarijo> +1 for Subject of Provenance 16:13:10 <paolo> paulo: makes connection b/w mut/immut and physical/digital 16:14:59 <paolo> paulo: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable 16:15:07 <paolo> Luc: true, but not current topic 16:15:09 <stain> mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable 16:15:39 <kai> Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp. <luc> ACTION-6, ACTION-7, ACTION-8 to Kai, Jim and Satya, respectively 16:15:55 <paolo> Luc: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow 16:16:23 <stain> I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000503