From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 12:17, 10 June 2011 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:51:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:51:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc 14:51:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:51:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:51:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:52:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:52:00 <trackbot> Date: 09 June 2011 14:52:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:52:25 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:52:25 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:48 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.09 14:52:50 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 14:53:05 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth 14:53:26 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 14:54:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:54:36 <Zakim> +??P3 14:54:52 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me 14:54:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:55:12 <Zakim> -Luc 14:55:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:55:27 <pgroth> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me 14:55:27 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 14:55:37 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:55:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller] 14:55:54 <pgroth> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:55:54 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:56:11 <Zakim> +??P3 14:56:13 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov 14:56:49 <estephan> estephan has joined #prov 14:56:52 <Zakim> +??P5 14:57:01 <pgroth> would someone be willing to scribe? 14:57:32 <Zakim> -??P5 14:57:46 <Zakim> +??P5 14:57:52 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me 14:57:52 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 14:58:14 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov 14:58:32 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:58:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:00 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa 14:59:05 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is me 14:59:05 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 14:59:16 <Zakim> +??P20 14:59:25 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, ??P3, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20 14:59:43 <frew> frew has joined #prov 14:59:50 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aabb 14:59:51 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me 14:59:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:00:02 <Zakim> +??P31 15:00:05 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:00:20 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov 15:00:21 <Zakim> +??P36 15:00:24 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P31 is me 15:00:24 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:00:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P38 15:01:00 <GK_> zakim, ??p38 is me 15:01:00 <Zakim> +GK_; got it 15:01:19 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aacc 15:01:38 <olaf> zakim, aacc is me 15:01:38 <Zakim> +olaf; got it 15:01:45 <simoninireland> simoninireland has joined #prov 15:01:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:01:49 <Zakim> +??P21 15:01:56 <smiles> zakim, ??P21 is me 15:01:56 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 15:02:01 <GK_> (I need to leave promptly at the hour) 15:02:05 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:02:08 <Zakim> + +1.832.386.aadd 15:02:17 <Zakim> +??P2 15:02:29 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:02:30 <Zakim> +??P6 15:02:33 <Zakim> -??P2 15:02:59 <Zakim> +??P1 15:03:02 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:03:15 <Zakim> +??P7 15:03:16 <jorn> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, ??P36, GK_, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd, ??P6, ??P1, ??P7 15:03:23 <jcheney> zakim, ??P7 is me 15:03:23 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:03:31 <tlebo> :-) 15:03:34 <tlebo> scribe: tlebo 15:03:40 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaee 15:03:40 <jcheney> AFK for a minute 15:03:51 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-02 <luc>Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; actions-10 and 11 are carried over, all other actions were completed. Invited expert issues are now all resolved by the W3C; new members of the group are invited to introduce themselves on the mailing list. All are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings. 15:03:59 <tlebo> subtopic: Minutes from last week 15:04:02 <dgarijo> +1 15:04:03 <smiles> +1 15:04:06 <estephan> +1 15:04:06 <tlebo> proposed: accept minutes 15:04:09 <frew> +1 15:04:11 <olaf> +1 15:04:11 <GK_> +1 15:04:12 <simoninireland> +1 15:04:14 <zednik> +1 15:04:22 <jorn> +1 15:04:24 <StephenCresswell> +1 15:04:24 <tlebo> +1 15:04:44 <Zakim> + +329331aaff 15:04:45 <tlebo> accepted: minutes 15:04:53 <tlebo> subtopic: Coordinators of task forces 15:04:56 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aagg 15:05:14 <tlebo> pgroth: in addition to coordinators announced last week, Helene Deus and Stephan Zednik will coordinate the Implementation and Test Cases TF till F2F1 #15:05:17 <tlebo> connection task force 15:05:17 <Zakim> +??P11 15:05:34 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces 15:05:49 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 15:06:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:06:02 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaff is me 15:06:02 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it #15:06:31 <tlebo> topic: Definition of Resource <luc>subtopic: Record vote that took place during the week <luc>pgroth: we take note of a vote made during the week 15:06:04 <pgroth> In a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing 15:06:20 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0096.html 15:06:26 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 15:06:30 <paolo_> paolo_ has joined #prov 15:06:39 <tlebo> pgroth: is there objections to the proposal? #15:06:39 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - Objections of definition? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/20/edit . 15:06:49 <tlebo> oops 15:06:54 <JamesMyers> JamesMyers has joined #prov 15:07:05 <tlebo> accepted: to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing 15:07:15 <tlebo> subtopic: open actions 15:07:12 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:07:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:07:43 <tlebo> there were actions for Resource 15:07:51 <dgarijo> @tlebo: definition for resource or agreement to use the IVPTs? 15:07:54 <tlebo> there were actions for the Task Forces - on way to being done. 15:07:55 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh 15:08:09 <tlebo> subtopic: Invited experts have been invited. 15:08:22 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aaii 15:08:36 <Zakim> +??P19 15:08:46 <Yogesh> zakim, + +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh 15:08:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '+ +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh', Yogesh 15:08:48 <dgarijo> i get a lot of noise :( 15:08:49 <tlebo> invited expert #1. - (broken voice connection) 15:08:59 <Luc> generally, people who have joined recently may want to send an introduction to the mailing list 15:09:02 <paolo_> zakim, ??P19 is me 15:09:02 <Zakim> +paolo_; got it 15:09:12 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:09:14 <jorn> Zakim, who is noisy? 15:09:25 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (9%), ??P36 (13%) 15:09:29 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540.449 is Yogesh 15:09:29 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it 15:09:36 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P36 15:09:36 <Zakim> ??P36 should now be muted 15:10:02 <Zakim> +??P24 15:10:07 <tlebo> any other intros on phone? please introduce yourselves on the mailing list. 15:10:19 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P24 is really me 15:10:19 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:10:22 <tlebo> subtopic: Scribes 15:10:26 <tlebo> please sign up. 15:10:29 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes 15:11:02 <tlebo> topic: Plans from PAQ Task Force until Face-to-Face meeting <luc>Summary: Simon Miles and Yogesh presented the plans and timetable for the PAQ TF. A number of participants volunteered to contribute to this document. 15:11:09 <Zakim> -jorn 15:11:18 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0068.html 15:11:24 <Zakim> +??P5 15:11:30 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me 15:11:30 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:11:56 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal 15:12:07 <tlebo> smiles: they proposed on mailing list, no objections yet. 2 questions - 1) identity and 2) location; how to obtain and embedding in HTML. 15:12:30 <tlebo> smiles: inspired by incubator proposal in report. 15:12:39 <Zakim> -??P6 15:12:56 <tlebo> smiles: want to start populating templates. feedback on templates welcome, too. 15:13:43 <tlebo> smiles: want to discover issues in next week so we have them to discuss at F2F. 15:13:48 <Zakim> +??P6 15:13:49 <pgroth> q? #15:14:19 <tlebo> unknown: broken phone connection. 15:14:32 <paolo_> q+ 15:14:54 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:14:57 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-dr-20090901/#httplink 15:15:04 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ 15:15:10 <tlebo> paolo_: what is powder? Can we have reference? 15:15:36 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov 15:15:44 <tlebo> paolo_: make sure powder link is obvious in the writeup. 15:16:06 <tlebo> pgroth: timetable? 15:16:45 <tlebo> smiles: today - finish scope asap. by 23rd June finish questions. by 30tg draft for F2F. #15:16:59 <tlebo> : simon to send timeline in mailing list. #15:16:59 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - simon #15:16:59 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2) 15:17:31 <olaf> I will 15:17:43 <paolo_> q? 15:17:43 <GK_> I intend to continue to help with proposals 15:17:46 <paolo_> ack 15:17:49 <tlebo> proposed: people self-select to provide proposals. 15:17:53 <Yogesh> q+ 15:17:56 <satya> volunteer 15:17:56 <Luc> I will point to the web protocol defined by sparql group as a way to access provenance 15:18:00 <paolo_> q? 15:18:03 <paolo_> q- 15:18:04 <pgroth> ack paolo_ 15:18:07 <pgroth> ack Yogesh 15:18:29 <tlebo> : please separate proposals into different sections based on who proposed them. 15:18:33 <Yogesh> q- 15:18:48 <SamCoppens> volunteer 15:19:15 <olaf> q+ 15:19:23 <pgroth> ack olaf 15:19:49 <Luc> graham, why do you need a reference to the powder profile here? isn't it that <link/> is part of html and not POWDER? 15:20:11 <tlebo> olaf: proposals first phase, THEN issues raised against proposal. what do issues mean? issues of proposals themselves or that are found when considering them. 15:20:21 <GK_> q+ 15:20:23 <tlebo> smiles: the former is intended. 15:20:24 <olaf> q- 15:20:52 <pgroth> ack GK_ 15:20:53 <GK_> q- 15:21:03 <tlebo> smiles: we should distinguish between out of scope for F2F but sill within scope of prov-wg. 15:22:32 <tlebo> GK_: re POWDER. want to make distinction from access vs. determinign the URIs for access. not sure how to make that clear in current writeup sections. 15:22:36 <Zakim> +[LC] 15:22:52 <edsu> zakim, [LC] is edsu 15:22:52 <Zakim> +edsu; got it 15:23:27 <tlebo> provenance of document vs. its identity 15:23:54 <tlebo> topic: Plans for Connection Task Force until Face-to-face meeting <luc>Summary: Eric presented the plans drafted with Kai for the Connection TF. A timetable still needs to be produced. Group members have volunteered to contribute to the task force. 15:24:05 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Connection_Proposal 15:25:04 <Luc> yogesh and simon, could you add the timeline to the wiki page? 15:25:35 <tlebo> ericstephan: for proposal, not timeline yet. Have initial proposed scope. Basing from incubator group; existing vocabularies. Domain-specific conventions need to be considered. 3) complementary concepts relating to provenance. 15:25:53 <tlebo> ericstephan: e.g. visual analytics group interested in provenance. 15:26:25 <tlebo> ericstephan: considering scope; what to exclude/include. 15:26:42 <GK_> q+ to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention 15:26:46 <Zakim> -jorn 15:26:49 <tlebo> ericstephan: Kai has example template to use when gathering connections. #15:27:02 <tlebo> s/CHI/??/ 15:27:14 <dgarijo> i think he refers to Kai 15:27:15 <satya> @Eric - please clarify "complementary concepts relating to provenance" 15:27:31 <Zakim> +??P5 #15:27:31 <Luc> s/CHI/Kai/ 15:27:40 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me 15:27:40 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:28:13 <satya> thanks! 15:28:19 <tlebo> ericstephan: w.r.t. data quality, uncertainty quantification. a lot of work in "knowledge provenance layer". -- what means by "complementary concepts" 15:28:23 <pgroth> ack GK_ 15:28:23 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention 15:28:34 <tlebo> GK_: examples for domain-specific conventions. 15:29:09 <Yogesh> @Luc, F2F1 Access and Query Proposal plan has been posted to wiki 15:29:29 <tlebo> ericstephan: currently trying to integrate disparate models with earth simulation, agriculture, power grid models. They want to capture and identify uncertainties from those results. 15:29:42 <Luc> @Yogesh, thanks! 15:29:51 <Luc> q+ 15:29:51 <tlebo> ericstephan: this will need provenance to address the uncertainties. 15:30:07 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:30:20 <pgroth> luc? 15:30:32 <tlebo> luc: broken phone. 15:30:32 <Luc> it looks like you can't hear me, i'll type my comments 15:31:03 <tlebo> pgroth: please add timeline soon for connection. 15:31:07 <Luc> the scenario that Eric described looks more like an application, doesn't this belong to the last task force? 15:31:16 <ericstephan> okay 15:31:29 <tlebo> pgroth: people should help with connection task force. 15:31:37 <simoninireland> I'd be interested 15:31:44 <Luc> For this task force, will we investigate opportunities for connecting with DC, Identity, Life Science, .... 15:31:45 <simoninireland> Sorry, keyboard malfunction :-) 15:31:47 <ericstephan> Several people volunteered yesterday in email 15:31:50 <Lena> i am interested 15:32:02 <tlebo> pgroth: this is about connecting to existing provenance standards and domains and their use cases 15:32:04 <ericstephan> I believe Carl Reed? 15:32:13 <Christine> Apologies. It is difficult for me to hear. But very happy to help progress this work. 15:32:15 <edsu> i would be willing to try to help outreach w/ digital preservation community 15:32:20 <ericstephan> Thank you 15:32:23 <GK_> @luc @ericstephan I'm *guessing* that there's a reference here to provenence that's implicit in existing applications, and if there are conventions we can connect to. But that's just my guess. 15:32:26 <frew> very interested in connections to climate/earth science but will be offline for next ~3 weeks so can't help w/ F2F1 15:32:35 <tlebo> topic: Plans for Implementation and Test case Task Force until F2F1 <luc>Summary: Helena and Stephan presented their plan for the task force. The focus of the discussion was on the scope of this TF. Actual plans until F2F1 still need to be formulated. It was agreed that the document had just been released and more time was needed to reflect on it. Plans for F2F1 will be written during the week. 15:32:44 <Luc> @ericstephan, will you also write the timetable on the wiki? 15:32:47 <zednik> wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Unit_Test_Proposal 15:33:16 <tlebo> lena: identified scope on wiki. listing series of deliverables. 15:33:30 <ericstephan> @Luc yes I will meet with Kai on the timeline and get this out asap 15:33:44 <tlebo> lena: engaging with stakeholders and connecting with other task forces. contacting those with provenance problems, so they can give overview and how it would be used. 15:33:59 <Luc> q+ 15:34:28 <tlebo> GK_: wiki page indicates stakeholder-oriented. lower level test cases to help clarify details? e.g. RDF working group had small test cases. 15:34:44 <satya> @Lena/Stephan: would like to point to the use cases created by the Provenance XG, for example: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario 15:34:47 <dgarijo> +q 15:34:53 <tlebo> lena: develop use cases from interviewing stakeholders. 15:36:02 <tlebo> luc: to Helena, going to talk to stakeholders outside of working group or inside? 15:36:32 <tlebo> lena: Ideally outside. e.g. Stephan's Australia and Helena's. Invite them to present to us. 15:36:58 <tlebo> luc: remember those in working group. Would help to focus with them. 15:37:22 <tlebo> luc: members of group interested in implementing standards. 15:37:43 <jun> q+ 15:37:46 <tlebo> lena: by F2F, clarifying use cases and detailing them. 15:37:47 <smiles> q+ 15:37:55 <Luc> q- 15:37:59 <Zakim> -jorn 15:38:03 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Cases#Original_Use_Cases_Proposed 15:38:13 <Zakim> +??P2 15:38:16 <tlebo> dgarijo: in incubator group, 50 use cases. some of those can be reused. 15:38:22 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me 15:38:22 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:38:29 <pgroth> q? 15:38:31 <tlebo> lena: started with those 15:38:35 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 15:38:46 <tlebo> dgarijo: please add link to those from the wiki page 15:38:53 <pgroth> ack jun 15:39:08 <tlebo> action: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases 15:39:08 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - use 15:39:57 <satya> +1 for Jun's point 15:40:07 <dgarijo> yep, I agree too. 15:40:26 <tlebo> jun: worried about implementation vs. use cases - out of scope? 2) what to do with requirements? expand model based on use cases? 15:41:02 <Luc> q+ 15:41:03 <tlebo> lena: idea is to help identify the requirements for the use cases and make sure it has a target audience. 15:41:16 <pgroth> ack smiles 15:41:21 <GK_> q+ to say but we are not (as a WG) creating a s/w implementation 15:41:23 <tlebo> jun: suggest to restate the wiki page to reflect this. 15:41:56 <tlebo> smiles: objectives for F2F preparations? 15:42:03 <dgarijo> @GK_ but we should at least provide some examples/guidelines if we want people to use the PIL 15:42:24 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders both at F2F and outside. 15:42:36 <GK_> @dgariji yes, no prob there, but wary of scope 15:42:45 <GK_> s/ware/wary/ 15:42:54 <tlebo> zednik: still establishing scope for task force. 15:42:59 <pgroth> q? 15:43:03 <VinhNguyen> VinhNguyen has joined #prov 15:43:07 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:43:42 <tlebo> luc: concerned for amount of work. only 4 weeks to F2F. 15:43:48 <Zakim> + +1.937.708.aajj 15:43:57 <tlebo> zednik: we are not doing work, but establishing scope of what TF will be doing. 15:44:54 <tlebo> lena: scope of TF 15:45:03 <tlebo> luc: we need 2 independent implementations that interoperate. 15:45:17 <tlebo> luc: we need to define what it means to interoperate. 15:45:53 <tlebo> luc: we need to find someone with a provenance problem willing to implement the standards. 15:46:37 <tlebo> lena: TF will review the charter. 15:46:37 <SamCoppens> I am volunteer for reference impl 15:46:40 <GK_> q? 15:47:51 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders is primary objective for F2F. 15:48:18 <tlebo> luc: what kind of information to do want to obtain from stakeholders. 15:48:37 <Zakim> -??P1 15:48:58 <tlebo> pgroth: table to mailing list. 15:49:10 <Luc> +1 15:49:35 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:49:48 <dgarijo> I think it would be nice to try to model at least the news example with the current concepts. 15:50:38 <tlebo> GK_: regarding wg's role in implementations and applications. That's not what's happening. 15:51:04 <tlebo> zednik: TF to coordinate implementation, but who would be DOING it? 15:51:09 <paolo_> @GK I think this is clear enough from the charter? 15:51:19 <tlebo> pgroth: we find groups that are willing to adopt our standard - we don't do it ourselves. 15:51:40 <tlebo> zednik: we should provide documentation that allows another group to implement the recommendation. 15:51:42 <dgarijo> +1 to the portotypes. 15:51:51 <GK_> @paolo, indeed. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter makes no reference to ref implementation. 15:52:01 <tlebo> pgroth: more than one organization develops our recommendations. 15:52:10 <estephan> it would seem like there is a relationship between the implementation and connection task force that we should explore at the f2f 15:52:11 <paolo_> q+ 15:52:19 <GK_> q- 15:52:22 <pgroth> ack GK_ 15:52:25 <pgroth> ack paolo_ 15:52:37 <satya> @GK - for the proposal of the WG to be a W3C recommendation, we need couple of example/prototype implementations 15:53:03 <tlebo> paolo_: for modeling language vs. tooling. Implementation is not in scope, but tools need to support the new model. 15:53:17 <GK_> @satya - sure we do, but the *implementation* itself isn't from the WG. Convincing toolmakers is. 15:53:31 <paolo_> q- 15:53:36 <Zakim> -jorn 15:53:43 <GK_> The point is to prove that NON-WG-MEMBERS can implement it. 15:53:49 <tlebo> pgroth: scope of wg is not to create implementation, but to convince others to adopt it. 15:53:57 <Zakim> +??P1 15:54:01 <jorn> zakim, ??p1 is me 15:54:01 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:54:10 <satya> @GK - agree, I think Paolo put it precisely - example tools <luc> TOPIC: Model Task Force <luc>Summary: Three proposals were put forward in the agenda. The first one was approved. We began discussions on the second, but didn't have time to reach consensus. The third one was left for next week. 15:54:17 <pgroth> proposed: 1. there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition; 2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG; 3. terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate 15:54:18 <pgroth> there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition 15:54:18 <pgroth> process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG 15:54:18 <pgroth> terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate 15:54:29 <tlebo> pgroth: Concepts discussions - process execution and process specification. 15:54:46 <khalidbelhajjame> How easy to convince people/organization that are non members of the WG to implement a model that they did not specify? 15:55:03 <tlebo> pgroth: process specification equates to "recipe" in prov-xg. we are not creating a specification language. 15:55:05 <satya> q+ 15:55:18 <tlebo> pgroth: creating process specification language is out of scope. 15:55:21 <dgarijo> @khalid: true 15:55:44 <satya> q- 15:55:57 <satya> +1 15:55:57 <smiles> +1 15:55:58 <JamesMyers> +1 15:55:58 <jcheney> +1 15:55:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:55:59 <dgarijo> +1 15:55:59 <Yogesh> +1 15:56:00 <GK_> +1 agree with distinction 15:56:00 <jun> +1 15:56:00 <Edoardo> +1 15:56:00 <olaf> +1 15:56:01 <estephan> +1 15:56:01 <frew> +1 15:56:01 <dcorsar> +1 15:56:03 <paolo_> +1 15:56:06 <zednik> +1 15:56:07 <tlebo> satya: we need to distinguish, but we are not defining what is actually used. 15:56:08 <tlebo> +1 15:56:09 <GK_> -1 link to specific language 15:56:11 <tlebo> (group can link to them, but are not defining them) 15:56:12 <jcheney> and we could point to other such languages (XProc, BPEL, ...) 15:56:15 <tfrancart> +1 15:56:24 <SamCoppens> +1 15:56:29 <tlebo> action: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page 15:56:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - add 15:56:31 <satya> @James - agree 15:56:41 <VinhNguyen> +1 15:57:02 <tlebo> GK_: recognizing that there may be languages and they can be implemented 15:57:17 <JamesMyers> the only model question I have is whether we need process which has executions and a recipe or just the link between process execution and process recipe (w/o an independent thing called process) 15:57:18 <jcheney> "including, but not limited to language 1, language 2, language 3, ..." 15:57:21 <Lena> +1 15:57:37 <tlebo> accepted: 1. there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition; 2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG; 3. terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate 15:57:45 <tlebo> pgroth: Proposal 2: process execution 15:57:48 <pgroth> PROPOSED: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval 15:57:55 <tlebo> pgroth: process execution has time interval. 15:57:58 <satya> +1 15:57:59 <GK_> q+ to ask if the past constraint is necessary 15:58:04 <dgarijo> +1 15:58:17 <satya> q+ 15:58:18 <Christine> Apologies all. I will need to leave the call. 15:58:21 <Luc> q+ 15:58:25 <Zakim> -??P6 15:58:25 <tlebo> GK_: does anything break if we don't require start of execution to be in past? 15:59:05 <tlebo> satya: it is important that process has started in past. provenance metadata is w.r.t history. it is a defining criteria for provenance. 15:59:08 <smiles> q+ 15:59:13 <satya> q- 15:59:14 <pgroth> ack GK_ 15:59:15 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if the past constraint is necessary 15:59:16 <GK_> q- 15:59:20 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:59:28 <paolo_> @GK provenance is based on observations... so yes, the process exec should have started before we can observe what it does 15:59:39 <tlebo> luc: +1 satya, we are not defining what will happen in future or predicting. not about specifying things in future. describing what has happened in the past. 15:59:41 <pgroth> ack smiles 15:59:45 <JamesMyers> anticipated provenance is workflow :-) 16:00:08 <GK_> (I'm trying to think of examples ... best I can do is fiction) 16:00:20 <GK_> What Simon said 16:00:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:00:44 <pgroth> proposed: process execution has a duration and A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past. 16:00:45 <paolo_> q+ 16:00:45 <JamesMyers> has a duration or can have a duration? 16:00:57 <paolo_> duration? 16:01:00 <Luc> q+ 16:01:05 <tlebo> proposed: process execution has a duration and is in the past. 16:01:17 <Zakim> -GK_ 16:01:42 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 16:01:47 <pgroth> ack paolo_ 16:01:47 <JamesMyers> in OPM, time was 'optional'... 16:01:58 <zednik> q+ 16:02:00 <satya> @khalid - the definition of process incorporates time dimension 16:02:08 <smiles> 'non-instantaneous'? 16:02:08 <tlebo> paolo_: starting time is enough to talk about provenance. no more is needed. duration may be ongoing. not necessary to get into it. 16:02:09 <paolo_> q- 16:02:30 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:03:39 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:03:45 <paolo_> q+ 16:03:51 <tlebo> luc: disagrees with paolo. We are creating a modeling language to help us describe what has happening in the past. We _could_ describe everything as being instantaneous. Processes do not necessarily have to a duration; they could be instantaneous. Instead, what we say is there is a start time and end time. Also, we should not merge proposals. 16:04:00 <pgroth> ack zednik 16:04:13 <tlebo> zednik: agrees, but is time a required property or optional? 16:04:32 <tlebo> pgroth: it has a duration, not that you have to specify it. (open world?) 16:04:41 <satya> @Stephan - without time dimension, process cannot be distinguished from notion of resource 16:04:43 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 16:05:04 <Luc> how long did it last? 16:05:18 <Zakim> -smiles 16:05:23 <pgroth> ack paolo_ 16:05:28 <zednik> @Satya - not sure what you mean, perhaps follow-up in email 16:05:51 <JamesMyers> OPM considered time stamps as a way to verify/challenge the processing claims (evidence that you should trust the provenance) 16:06:06 <pgroth> proposed: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval 16:06:10 <tlebo> paolo_: useful to have start time so can reason about events. end time is less important. 16:06:13 <dgarijo> +1 16:06:14 <satya> +1 16:06:14 <JamesMyers> +1 16:06:16 <frew> +1 16:06:17 <paolo_> q- 16:06:17 <StephenCresswell> +1 16:06:17 <zednik> +1 16:06:18 <paolo_> +1 16:06:20 <jcheney> +1 16:06:21 <olaf> +1 to duration 16:06:21 <SamCoppens> +1 16:06:24 <dcorsar> +1 16:06:25 <estephan> +1 16:06:25 <Edoardo> +1 16:06:29 <jun> 0 16:06:33 <Yogesh> +1 16:06:34 <khalidbelhajjame> 0 16:06:37 <jorn> +1 even though duration can be incredibly short 16:06:37 <Lena> -1 to making duration a requirement 16:06:39 <tlebo> 0 16:06:58 <paolo_> it's not that end time is less important, rather that process executions may not have a known end time 16:06:59 <zednik> -1 to make duration a requirement 16:07:27 <estephan> agreed with Stephan 16:07:28 <tlebo> (open world can help us here, no?) 16:07:41 <zednik> @tlebo - agreed 16:07:43 <JamesMyers> process executions are not constrained to be instantaneous... 16:07:45 <paolo_> "process executions have a temporal characterisation" sounds trivially true... 16:07:59 <satya> q+ 16:08:20 <tlebo> pgroth: we need to finish this up on mailing list. 16:08:49 <tlebo> satya: philosophy. execution occurs over time - essential. can be instantaneous or over time (depending on granularity). 16:08:57 <tlebo> satya: does not need to be explicitly noted, but is essential aspect. 16:08:58 <satya> q- 16:09:24 <Zakim> -jorn 16:09:24 <tlebo> pgroth: group to finish up process execution. #16:09:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Group to finish up process execution. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/21/edit . 16:09:31 <estephan> bye 16:09:31 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aagg 16:09:32 <Zakim> -paolo_ 16:09:33 <Zakim> -edsu 16:09:34 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:09:34 <Zakim> -Yogesh 16:09:34 <tlebo> SCRIBE HELP 16:09:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:09:36 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:09:36 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aabb 16:09:37 <paolo_> paolo_ has left #prov 16:09:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:09:40 <Zakim> -olaf 16:09:42 <Zakim> - +1.937.708.aajj 16:09:43 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has left #prov 16:09:44 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:09:46 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 16:09:48 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh 16:09:50 <Zakim> -??P20 16:09:52 <Zakim> +??P0 16:09:52 <tlebo> rrsagent, set log public 16:09:54 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaee 16:09:56 <Zakim> - +1.832.386.aadd 16:09:58 <Zakim> -??P11 16:09:58 <tlebo> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:09:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-minutes.html tlebo 16:10:00 <Zakim> -??P36 16:10:02 <Zakim> -Luc 16:10:04 <Zakim> -??P0 16:10:12 <pgroth> Regrets: Yolanda Gil, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Kai Eckert, Carl Reed 16:10:53 <tlebo> trackbot, end telcon 16:10:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:10:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, pgroth, jorn, [IPcaller], +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, GK_, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd, 16:10:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:10:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:10:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:10:55 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-actions.rdf : #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: simon to send timeline in mailing list.  #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-16-59 #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases  #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-39-08 #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page  #16:10:55 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-56-29 16:10:57 <Zakim> ... jcheney, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.216.368.aagg, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aahh, +1.540.449.aaii, paolo_, Yogesh, khalidbelhajjame, edsu, +1.937.708.aajj 16:11:09 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:11:10 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:11:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000528