From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<luc>GUEST: Ralph (ralphtq) Hodgson 14:50:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:50:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-prov-irc 14:50:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:50:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:50:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:50:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:50:23 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:50:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:50:23 <trackbot> Date: 16 June 2011 14:50:27 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:50:28 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 14:50:50 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16 14:51:02 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:51:24 <Luc> Regrets: Paolo Missier, Kai Eckert, Graham Klyne, Helena Deus 14:51:30 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:51:30 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:51:36 <Luc> scribe: dgarijo 14:51:37 <Zakim> +??P34 14:51:48 <pgroth> Zakim, +??P34 is me 14:51:48 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+??P34' 14:51:58 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P34 is me 14:51:58 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:52:40 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa 14:52:50 <Luc> zakim, aaaa is me 14:52:50 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:53:00 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 14:53:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc 14:53:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, edsu, sandro, trackbot, stain 14:54:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:54:35 <Luc> Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; actions-10 is now closed and action-11 is carried over. The vote that occurred during the week was noted. All are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings. 14:54:56 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:54:56 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 14:55:50 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 14:56:38 <Zakim> +??P38 14:56:48 <stain> Zakim, ???P38 is me 14:56:48 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '???P38' 14:56:49 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 14:56:54 <stain> Zakim, ?P38 is me 14:56:54 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '?P38' 14:57:06 <stain> Zakim: +??P38 is me 14:57:06 <Zakim> +??P39 14:57:14 <smiles> zakim, ??P39 is me 14:57:14 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 14:57:28 <Zakim> +??P40 #14:57:28 <Luc> Regrets+ Graham Klyne 14:57:30 <Zakim> +??P41 14:57:36 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 14:58:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:58:23 <Zakim> -??P41 14:58:26 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16 14:58:34 <Zakim> +??P41 14:58:36 <dgarijo> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16 14:58:44 <jorn> Zakim: ??p41 is me 14:58:45 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb 14:58:51 <jorn> Zakim, ??p41 is me 14:58:52 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 14:59:03 <tlebo> zakim, aabb is me 14:59:04 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 14:59:25 <jorn> zakim, who is noisy? 14:59:31 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 14:59:36 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (14%) 14:59:53 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:00:00 <stain> (SIP on Android actually working) 15:00:06 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:00:19 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aacc 15:00:20 <altintas> altintas has joined #prov 15:00:35 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov 15:00:46 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aadd 15:01:17 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov 15:01:18 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:01:34 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aaee 15:01:37 <ilkayaltintas> i'm calling via Skype so I don't know what my area code is 15:02:03 <Zakim> + +329331aaff 15:02:13 <dgarijo> Luc: Welcome and review the tf drafts 15:02:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-09 15:02:37 <dgarijo> ... accept the minutes of last week's telecon 15:02:41 <ericstephan> +1 15:02:42 <dgarijo> dgarijo: +1 15:02:43 <smiles> +1 15:02:43 <SamCoppens> Zakim, +329331aaff is me 15:02:47 <zednik> +1 15:02:48 <jun> +1 15:02:48 <satya> Luc: Accept the minutes for last telcon 15:02:49 <tlebo> +1 15:02:49 <olaf> +1 15:02:51 <dcorsar> +1 15:02:52 <SamCoppens> +1 15:02:53 <ilkayaltintas> +1 15:02:55 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aagg 15:03:08 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov 15:03:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:03:13 <olaf> zakim, aagg is me 15:03:17 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 15:03:21 <jun> zakim, IPcaller is me 15:03:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference 15:03:29 <jorn> +1 15:03:35 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:03:35 <Zakim> +??P29 15:03:41 <Luc> A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval. Statements denoting this duration are optional. 15:03:48 <dgarijo> Luc: record the votes that took place during the week 15:03:52 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0244.html 15:03:53 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:03:54 <stain> I didn't vote as I was not here last week - but neither was ilkayaltintas :) 15:03:57 <Zakim> +??P24 15:03:57 <dgarijo> ... on the mailing list 15:04:01 <Zakim> +olaf; got it 15:04:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:04:22 <dgarijo> ... review actions 15:04:27 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' 15:04:34 <paulo> paulo has joined #prov 15:04:40 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:04:47 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh 15:04:49 <dgarijo> ... 2 actions for the coordinators of tf 15:05:01 <dgarijo> Luc: were completed during the week 15:05:03 <Zakim> -??P24 15:05:11 <jcheney> zakim, ??P24 is me 15:05:25 <dgarijo> Luc: the last item is that we are still need scribe volunteers 15:05:26 <Zakim> +??P7 15:05:35 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov <luc>TOPIC: Connection TF Plan to F2F1 <luc>Summary: Timetable was was discussed. Everyone is invited to create a documentation of some group that might be a connection by using the DCMI example and adjusts it if needed. A catalog of relevant initiatives will be collated for F2F1. 15:05:36 <dgarijo> Luc: Connection Task Force 15:05:38 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P7 is really me 15:05:42 <Zakim> +??P9 15:05:53 <Zakim> I already had ??P24 as ??P24, jcheney 15:06:04 <dgarijo> ericstephan: update on the Connection TF & time table 15:06:23 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:06:24 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Connection_Proposal 15:06:30 <dgarijo> ericstephan: meeting yesterday 15:06:35 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aaii 15:06:41 <dgarijo> ... developed a timetible 15:06:58 <Zakim> +[LC] 15:07:01 <dgarijo> ... for the next 2 weeks we are going to gather info about ppossible connections 15:07:05 <edsu> zakim, LC is edsu 15:07:14 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov 15:07:17 <dgarijo> ... using the template provided by kai 15:07:17 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540 is me 15:07:24 <Zakim> +Yolanda 15:07:26 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov 15:07:42 <dgarijo> ... search possible "clients" to use the PIL 15:07:51 <Zakim> +edsu; got it 15:08:04 <Luc> q? 15:08:05 <dgarijo> Luc: have you identified contributors 15:08:09 <dgarijo> ... ? 15:08:10 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it 15:08:20 <dgarijo> ... have you an online template already? 15:08:48 <dgarijo> ericstephan: if anybody has one possible connection please contact the connection task force 15:08:49 <Luc> q? 15:08:52 <pgroth> +q 15:08:55 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aajj 15:08:58 <dgarijo> +q 15:09:00 <pgroth> q? 15:09:05 <Zakim> +??P13 15:09:06 <Luc> q? 15:09:11 <Zakim> +??P10 15:09:14 <dgarijo> pgroth: there is a template on the proposal page 15:09:16 <pgroth> q- 15:09:21 <YolandaGil> q? 15:09:27 <Luc> ack dgarijo 15:09:30 <dgarijo> q- 15:09:30 <Luc> q? 15:10:09 <Luc> q? 15:10:24 <jorn> note irc being very laggy atm 15:10:26 <dgarijo> YolandaGil: just wondering where to put the contributions? 15:10:39 <stephen> stephen has joined #prov 15:10:47 <pgroth> +q 15:10:57 <dgarijo> ericstephan: want to do a catalogue with one page per possible connection 15:11:00 <pgroth> q- 15:11:06 <Luc> q? 15:11:12 <dgarijo> Luc: add the entrypoints to the page, so anyone can contribute 15:11:58 <Luc> q? 15:12:09 <dgarijo> ... as a wg, we want to see how our model relates to other initievives (DC, etc). Are we going to start that work? 15:12:43 <dgarijo> ericstephan: the model is evolving right now, so for now we will focus on possible collaborators 15:13:44 <dgarijo> Luc: that work would tell us which properties should the PIL tackle too 15:13:59 <Zakim> -jorn 15:14:16 <Zakim> +??P41 15:14:23 <dgarijo> ericstephan: yes, we'll be sensitive to that 15:14:23 <jorn> zakim, ??p41 is me 15:14:23 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:14:30 <pgroth> +q 15:14:44 <dgarijo> ... to the needs of other communities 15:15:05 <Luc> q? 15:15:15 <dgarijo> Luc: it doesn't have to be a detailed analysis 15:15:22 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:15:46 <dgarijo> pgroth: in the template there are already fields in the line of work proposed by Luc 15:16:23 <dgarijo> ericstephan: Kai has already tracked that 15:16:48 <dgarijo> Luc: who is going to contribute to what? 15:17:22 <dgarijo> ericstephan: 5 people contributing to the call yesterday, with different ideas/areas/interests 15:17:28 <Luc> q? 15:18:12 <Zakim> +??P1 15:18:14 <dgarijo> ... if anyone is interested, you don't have to belong to the tf to participate or provide pointers 15:18:16 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov <luc>TOPIC: Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1 15:18:35 <dgarijo> Luc: Implementation & test cases Task Force <luc>Summary: It is proposed that potential applications (within or outside the WG) that may implement the standard are identified. Template needs to be finalized. Members are invited to contribute information to the wiki. 15:18:42 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the situation? #15:18:56 <Luc> Regrets+ Helena Deus 15:19:10 <dgarijo> zednik: yet to have a call. 15:19:18 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:19:29 <dgarijo> ... to focus the direction/test cases / requirements 15:19:58 <Luc> q? 15:20:04 <pgroth> +q 15:20:07 <Luc> q? 15:20:10 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:20:13 <ericstephan> +q 15:21:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: be able to identify provenance systems that already use provenance. 15:22:10 <dgarijo> pgroth: Implementor: somebody that would include our model in the system 15:22:12 <Luc> ack ericstephan 15:22:20 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:22:21 <dgarijo> zednik: aka user 15:22:52 <dgarijo> ericstephan: some of the work of the connection tf is connected to the use cases 15:23:00 <Luc> q? 15:23:26 <dgarijo> ... maybe it is useful to detect potential clients 15:24:11 <dgarijo> zednik: we can do this, but it is not a big task. 15:24:17 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be useful info to gather 15:24:49 <Luc> q? 15:24:50 <dgarijo> zednik: create a list of user who would be able to oncorpore the spec 15:25:32 <dgarijo> Luc: there is a bit of overlap between tf, but it is not necessarily a concern 15:25:37 <Luc> q? 15:26:07 <dgarijo> Luc: next Item. Provenance access & query TF 15:26:12 <Luc> q? 15:26:21 <Luc> TOPIC: PAQ TF Plan to F2F1 <luc>Summary: Some proposals have already been submitted to the wiki. Further contributions are welcome. WG members are invited to review and comment on the proposals, by email or on the wiki. 15:26:31 <dgarijo> smiles: no comments about the template 15:26:48 <dgarijo> ... GK and Luc have added some proposals to the TF 15:26:55 <Luc> q? 15:26:58 <dgarijo> ... we need comments for the proposals 15:27:24 <dgarijo> ... are they clear/not clear? please comment on them 15:27:26 <Zakim> -??P38 15:27:37 <Luc> q? 15:27:56 <dgarijo> ... send comments also to the mailing list 15:27:56 <Yogesh> q+ 15:27:58 <Luc> q? 15:28:06 <Zakim> +??P8 15:28:14 <stain> Zakim: +??P8 is me 15:28:15 <pgroth> yogesh? 15:28:21 <Luc> ack yogesh 15:28:43 <jun> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal 15:28:47 <Luc> q? 15:29:30 <dgarijo> Luc: wiki or on the mailing list? 15:29:31 <pgroth> +q 15:29:44 <Zakim> -jorn 15:29:59 <pgroth> q- 15:30:14 <Luc> q? 15:30:20 <dgarijo> smiles: wiki, but no objections to mailing list 15:30:25 <Luc> q? 15:31:03 <Luc> TOPIC: Model TF Plan to F2F1 <luc>Summary: Curation is to start week commencing 22nd. WG members are invited to submit their definitions and comments on definitions. 15:31:04 <dgarijo> Luc: everybody can comment even if it is not on your tf 15:31:11 <dgarijo> Luc: Model TF 15:31:19 <jun> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Model_Proposal 15:32:16 <dgarijo> satya: there were discussions on the mailing list 15:32:19 <Zakim> +??P21 15:32:24 <dgarijo> ... people can comment on the wiki pages 15:32:32 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me 15:32:32 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:32:37 <Luc> q? 15:32:42 <dgarijo> ... or send an email to the mailing list 15:33:41 <dgarijo> Luc: the curation process. It would be nice to have some comments as to why we are not adopting a definition. Is something you are planning to do? #15:33:43 <dgarijo> ... ? 15:34:48 <dgarijo> khalid: group concepts that people have agreed on 15:35:12 <Zakim> +??P60 15:35:19 <dgarijo> satya: for the f2f try to constraint the journalist example & the concepts that model the example 15:35:25 <stain> Zakim: +??P60 is me 15:36:18 <pgroth> q+ 15:36:37 <dgarijo> Luc: khalid proposed a definition of derivation. It would be useful to add comments why this def has been revised in terms of IVPT 15:36:46 <dgarijo> pgroth: Jun's definition of derivation is a good model for tracking the updates of definitions 15:36:55 <Luc> q? 15:36:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok, 15:37:02 <dgarijo> Luc: where to put these comments is up to you :) 15:37:05 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:37:19 <Luc> q? 15:38:00 <pgroth> +1 yes thank you coordinators 15:38:00 <Luc> TOPIC: Model Task Force <luc> Summary: Consensus was reached on two proposals: a) Process executions start in the past, b) Initial definitions for the concept "Thing" and the relation "Invariant View or Perspective of". It was agreed that decisions are not final, but are a way to move forward to allows us to define other core concepts of the provenance interchange language. 15:38:33 <dgarijo> Luc: properties to gather consensus 15:38:45 <Luc> 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. 15:38:47 <dgarijo> Luc: paul sent a proposal to vote 15:39:29 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be nice to reach consensus here 15:39:58 <dgarijo> Luc: suggestion by Simon to add additional info to the definition 15:40:33 <Luc> q? 15:41:00 <Luc> 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, from the position of any assertion made about it. 15:41:21 <jcheney> q+ 15:41:25 <dgarijo> Luc: should it be rephrased? 15:41:28 <Luc> ack jcheney 15:41:32 <Zakim> + +1.650.386.aakk 15:42:00 <Luc> q? 15:42:05 <dgarijo> jcheney: if we approve this now is it going to be definitive or just agreeing on terminology as a starting point 15:42:07 <dgarijo> ... ? 15:42:10 <pgroth> q+ to respond to that 15:42:16 <Luc> q? 15:42:19 <dgarijo> ... maybe it will contraint us later 15:42:40 <Luc> q? 15:42:44 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:42:44 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond to that 15:43:06 <Christine> +q 15:43:22 <jcheney> q- 15:43:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: to get a set of terminology to agree in the beggining. Doesn't mean that we can't change it later, but just to understand us right now 15:43:32 <dgarijo> Luc: agrees 15:43:48 <satya> q+ 15:43:57 <Luc> ack Christine 15:44:15 <Christine> -q 15:44:16 <YolandaGil> Why don't you make these plans explicit, ie, say somewhere when will you allow a cycle of revisions to the model 15:44:21 <Christine> q- 15:44:24 <dgarijo> Christine: might be more useful to separate process execution in the past from the one is now occurring 15:44:27 <dgarijo> Luc: why? 15:44:38 <pgroth> Yolanda, good point 15:44:54 <Luc> q? 15:44:54 <dgarijo> Christine: it would make it easier to understand by the community. 15:45:13 <Luc> ack Christine 15:45:43 <dgarijo> introduction of Ralph Hodgson a future new memeber for the group. 15:45:46 <pgroth> welcome, ralph 15:46:03 <dgarijo> has not joined yet 15:46:15 <Luc> q? 15:46:34 <pgroth> absolutely 15:46:46 <Luc> ack satya 15:46:53 <satya> ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it 15:47:03 <dgarijo> satya: small modification to de definition 15:47:16 <dgarijo> ... simon's definition 15:47:28 <ralphtq> ralphtq has joined #prov 15:47:43 <Luc> q? 15:47:46 <Zakim> -jorn 15:47:49 <dgarijo> Luc: anyone has any problems with that? 15:47:55 <Luc> q? 15:48:02 <Zakim> +??P21 15:48:08 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me 15:48:08 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:48:36 <jorn> zakim, aakk is maybe ralphtq 15:48:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk is maybe ralphtq', jorn 15:48:44 <dgarijo> satya: time dimension is always involved 15:48:50 <jorn> zakim, aakk maybe is ralphtq 15:48:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk maybe is ralphtq', jorn 15:49:00 <smiles> 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. 15:49:10 <dgarijo> smiles: posts a suggestion to the definition 15:49:27 <stain> what is 'the past' ? 15:49:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. 15:49:44 <ralphtq> I am the person that asked about joining the call 15:49:57 <ralphtq> my email is email@example.com 15:49:57 <dgarijo> Luc: vote on this proposal 15:49:58 <satya> +1 15:50:02 <jun> +1 15:50:03 <jorn> +1 15:50:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:50:04 <SamCoppens> +1 15:50:04 <dgarijo> dgarijo: +1 15:50:05 <stain> 0 15:50:05 <jcheney> +1 15:50:07 <olaf> +1 15:50:09 <Yogesh> +1 15:50:10 <dcorsar> +1 15:50:11 <smiles> +1 (though probably could still be phrased better) 15:50:13 <tlebo> +1 15:50:14 <Edoardo> +1 15:50:17 <ilkayaltintas> +1 15:50:18 <zednik> +1 15:50:18 <tfrancart> 0 15:50:27 <JimM> +1 - provenance is past tense 15:50:32 <YolandaGil> +1 15:50:39 <Christine> Christine: not voting (the definition would benefit from some rephrasing for clarity) 15:50:39 <jorn> zakim, aakk may be ralphtq 15:50:39 <Zakim> +ralphtq?; got it 15:50:48 <Luc> ACCEPTED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. 15:50:56 <Luc> q? 15:51:22 <dgarijo> Luc: discussion on resources and IVPT 15:51:37 <Luc> 1. We began definitions using resources, but were not progressing, because there is no universal definition of resource, and challenge with dealing with stateful resources 2. Two weeks ago, we decided to separate web architecture discussions from model discussions 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the 15:51:44 <dgarijo> ... would like to paste a small summary of the discussions from the mailing list 15:52:16 <dgarijo> ... 1 duscussion on resources, but got stuck 15:52:42 <ralphtq> my work is on the web as VOAG - Vocabulary of Attribution and Governance (this currently includes some Provenance concepts) - see http://www.linkedmodels.org/doc/voag/1.0 15:52:42 <dgarijo> ... there is no universal agreement on resource, and the state of the resources. 15:52:56 <dgarijo> ... then we separated the discussions 15:53:06 <dgarijo> ... arch/model 15:53:14 <Luc> 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the idea of "Invariant View or Perspective on Thing" (IVPT) 15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... we recognised that we needed to have something immutable to assert provenance 15:53:46 <ralphtq> I finish my introduction with this link to my web page - I am the second person listed - http://www.topquadrant.com/company/mgmt.html 15:53:54 <Luc> 4. Last WE's discussions between Jim and I were about whether IVPT was a type on its own, distinct from other things 15:54:16 <dgarijo> ... idea of IVPT. Generation in terms of IVPT 15:54:43 <dgarijo> ... IVPT as a new concept, different than anything that we had 15:54:51 <Luc> 5. I was convinced by Jim's argument that there is only a concept of "thing" with properties that are stable with respect to other things. So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between types. 15:55:15 <Luc> but a relationship between things. 15:55:22 <dgarijo> ... So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between things 15:55:22 <Luc> 6. We came up with the definition http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 15:55:47 <dgarijo> ... have a Luc at this definition and provide feedback 15:56:08 <dgarijo> s/ Luc /look 15:56:30 <dgarijo> Luc: it is my perspective 15:56:49 <Christine> What do you mean by "identity" in this context? 15:57:13 <dgarijo> ... using invariant properties and mutable properties 15:57:22 <dgarijo> ... first definition of thing 15:57:49 <dgarijo> ... relationship between things 15:57:51 <Luc> q? 15:57:56 <ralphtq> I raise my hand to speak about SBFI and distinctions between Perspective, Viewpoint and Aspect 15:57:57 <Luc> q? 15:57:57 <dgarijo> ... a thing can be invariant from another 15:57:58 <pgroth> christine 15:57:59 <Christine> q+ 15:58:19 <dgarijo> Christine: whta is identity in this context? 15:58:30 <jorn> s/whta/what 15:58:35 <jorn> s/whta/what/ 15:58:42 <dgarijo> Luc: to me, it's the ability to distinguish 2 entities 15:58:45 <Zakim> -Yolanda 15:59:11 <ralphtq> SBFI stands for Structure, Behavior, Function adn Interface/Interaction - dimensions that characterize a system + BDI - Beliefs, Desires and Intentions 15:59:21 <dgarijo> Christine: identity is diferent from identification 15:59:25 <Luc> he collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known: 16:00:01 <ralphtq> DOCLE ontology defines endurants and perdurants - are you wanting to be that deep about the nature of the world? 16:00:03 <dgarijo> Luc: identity: the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known 16:00:05 <ralphtq> DOLCE 16:00:16 <Luc> q? 16:00:20 <pgroth> +q 16:00:20 <Christine> q- 16:00:27 <Luc> ack pgroth 16:01:00 <Luc> q? 16:01:06 <satya> @Christine: Can we limit the scope of the definition to the journalism example for now? 16:01:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: reasonable, but concerned that it might be to deepas a definitio. 16:01:23 <Luc> q? 16:01:27 <Luc> q? 16:01:36 <Luc> q? 16:01:38 <ralphtq> q+ 16:01:43 <JimM> q+ 16:01:54 <Christine> Paul, understand the need to reach consensus on language for definition 16:02:01 <dgarijo> Luc: not trying to get a final def today 16:02:35 <dgarijo> Luc: but process exectution, generation, etc will refer to thing 16:02:46 <Luc> q? 16:02:47 <satya> q+ 16:02:50 <Christine> Perhaps we just need to briefly explain "identity" as it is used here 16:02:55 <Luc> ack ralphtq 16:02:58 <dgarijo> ... we should get agreement asap, but not necessarily today 16:03:29 <Luc> q? 16:03:30 <Zakim> -jorn 16:03:47 <Zakim> +??P0 16:03:48 <Luc> q? 16:04:04 <jorn> zakim, ??p0 is me 16:04:04 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 16:04:27 <dgarijo> ralph: entity/thing. The DOLCE ontology has concepts to model some of the concepts endurants/perdurants 16:04:45 <Luc> q? 16:05:01 <dgarijo> ... viewpoints helps with the notion of identity 16:05:09 <Luc> q? 16:05:19 <dgarijo> ... because it is driven by context. 16:05:41 <satya> @ralph: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has similar concepts called continuants/occurrent 16:05:42 <dgarijo> ... desires to have a lightweight notion for provenance 16:05:59 <pgroth> thanks ralph 16:06:12 <Luc> ack JimM 16:07:03 <dgarijo> JimM: we have the use cases and we are looking for the lightweight notion to cover the user cases. 16:07:11 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:07:16 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:07:27 <Zakim> -jorn 16:07:43 <satya> q- 16:08:07 <dgarijo> JimM: been trying to put consitent defs of all the concepts. 16:08:18 <JimM> q- 16:08:36 <Luc> ack satya 16:08:43 <dgarijo> satya: +1 to a lightweight notion to cover the use cases 16:08:53 <dgarijo> (+1 to that too) 16:09:16 <Luc> Proposed: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts 16:09:32 <smiles> +1 16:09:37 <zednik> +1 16:09:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 16:09:39 <dgarijo> Luc: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki 16:09:44 <stain> +1 16:09:46 <dgarijo> 0 16:09:47 <jcheney> +1 16:09:54 <JimM> +1 16:09:56 <tfrancart> +1 16:09:57 <Edoardo> +1 16:10:01 <olaf> +1 16:10:09 <SamCoppens> +1 16:10:09 <ericstephan> +1 16:10:12 <Yogesh> +1 16:10:18 <jun> +1 16:10:18 <ilkayaltintas> +1 16:10:28 <satya> 0 16:10:28 <ralphtq> +1 16:10:30 <Christine> 0 #16:10:44 <Luc> accepted: Proposed: to use a notion of thing (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29) as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts 16:11:09 <Luc> accepted: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts 16:11:16 <dgarijo> Luc: we don't have unanimity 16:11:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we really should back to this def once we have a consistent set of definitions 16:12:10 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh 16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aacc 16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aaee 16:12:11 <Zakim> -jun 16:12:11 <Zakim> -edsu 16:12:12 <Luc> q? 16:12:13 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:12:16 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:12:18 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:12:19 <Zakim> -??P40 16:12:20 <dgarijo> Luc: now we can revise the other defs according to this one. Look forwardto see your contributions 16:12:21 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aajj 16:12:23 <Zakim> -??P60 16:12:25 <Zakim> -olaf 16:12:27 <Zakim> -??P1 16:12:29 <Zakim> -smiles 16:12:33 <Zakim> -Yogesh 16:12:35 <Zakim> -??P13 16:12:38 <Zakim> -Ralph Hodgson 16:12:41 <ralphtq> yes 16:12:43 <Zakim> -??P9 16:12:46 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aadd 16:12:46 <Luc> daniel, i can do the necessary incantations and have it for you to edit on the wiki 16:13:07 <ralphtq> zakim - did you want to ask me something? 16:13:55 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:14:04 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:14:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000497