Chatlog 2011-07-07

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 11:54, 15 July 2011 by Lmoreau (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

12:41:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
12:41:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc
12:41:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:41:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
12:41:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
12:41:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:42:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
12:42:00 <trackbot> Date: 07 July 2011
12:42:13 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
12:42:13 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 42 minutes ago
12:42:40 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
12:42:59 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable
12:43:23 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
12:43:45 <Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier
12:49:18 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 5: PAQ TF 
<pgroth> Summary: An overview of the current status of the PAQ TF was given by Simon Miles. The discussions focused on the access of provenance. A number of high level issues were resolved related to the expectations on provenance access. New terminology referring to the different URIs with respect to provenance access was introduced and was adopted during the discussion. The group endorsed limiting the scope of the first draft of the access document.
12:56:08 <GK> GK has joined #prov
12:56:59 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
12:58:29 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
12:58:49 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started
12:58:55 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room
13:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
13:01:44 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
13:01:56 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
13:01:56 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc#T13-01-56
13:02:04 <sandro> rrsagent, make logs public
13:02:46 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
13:02:55 <sandro> meeting: Prov F2F1 Day 2
13:03:17 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT:  77681# (note the "1")  Webcam: http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam
#13:03:29 <Paolo> topic: PAQ TF (session 5)
13:04:17 <Zakim> +zednik
13:04:24 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
13:04:25 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
13:04:34 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
13:05:15 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
13:06:21 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
13:06:37 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
13:06:40 <Paolo> Scribe: Paolo
13:06:41 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx
13:07:01 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
13:07:03 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
13:07:24 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
13:07:26 <pgroth> going through the slides
13:07:28 <pgroth> slide 1
13:08:05 <GK2> GK2 has joined #prov
13:08:38 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov
13:08:42 <Paolo> slide 2
13:09:39 <JimMcCusker> Can someone re-post the link to the slides?
13:09:41 <Paolo> 3
13:09:50 <Zakim> +??P1
13:09:51 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx
13:09:52 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx
13:10:02 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me
13:10:02 <Zakim> +GK; got it
13:10:12 <JimMcCusker> thanks
13:10:31 <Paolo> 4
13:10:43 <RyanGolden> RyanGolden has joined #prov
13:11:01 <Paolo> slide 5
13:11:13 <RyanGolden> can you post the URL to the slides again?
13:11:25 <Satya> Satya has joined #prov
13:11:35 <Paolo>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx
13:12:07 <Paolo> slide 6
13:13:47 <pgroth> pausing for the projector...
13:13:51 <IlkayAltintas> IlkayAltintas has joined #prov
13:14:22 <Paolo> (third option is proposal from Luc) 
13:14:28 <Paolo> on this slide
13:14:38 <Zakim> +olaf
13:14:48 <Paolo> 4 was a proposal from GK
13:15:06 <Paolo> bullet 5 was proposed by Stian
13:15:15 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
13:15:50 <Paolo> so slide 6 summarize proposals on first question
13:16:07 <Paolo> that was "Given information regarding where to access data on the provenance of a resource state representation, what form does that information take and how do we obtain the provenance data? "
13:16:41 <Paolo> slide 7
13:17:05 <Paolo> proposals for Q2, embedding provenance into an HTML doc: "How can a browser find the information on where to access provenance data, referred to above, for an HTML document that was downloaded, so that its provenance may be retrieved? "
13:17:24 <Paolo> bullet entry 1 from GK
13:17:31 <Paolo> bullet 2 from Luc
13:18:02 <Paolo> 3 also proposed by Luc
13:18:21 <olaf> is that the slideset Simon sent on Tuesday?
13:18:30 <pgroth> no it's from today
13:18:30 <Paolo> bullet 4: from Khalid
13:18:36 <pgroth> can someone paste the url again
13:18:50 <Paolo> @olaf: this is the set: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx
13:19:05 <olaf> thanks!
13:19:06 <Paolo> slide 8
13:20:04 <GK> That's pretty close to what I meant
13:20:11 <Paolo> GK: remember KISS :-)
13:20:25 <GK> :)
13:20:29 <Luc> q?
13:21:15 <Paolo> slide 9: hopefully uncontroversial suggestions for decisions
13:21:27 <pgroth> q?
13:21:37 <pgroth> q?
13:21:50 <sandro> "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources."
13:22:18 <Paolo> item 1 -- there may be multiple services providing provenance, or multiple prov URIs for an entity state
13:22:39 <Paolo> this has implications for access
13:23:12 <sandro> smiles: not the intent to suggest the data is the same.
13:23:23 <GK> Different provenance from different sources could be different, even inconsistent.  IMO.
13:24:00 <pgroth> Proposal: Provenance of a thing can be found at multiple sources
13:24:13 <olaf> +1 to "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources." (and this provenance information may differ)
13:27:58 <Paolo> Tim: can we just state provenance without referring "of ...(Bob etc)"?
13:28:30 <Paolo> Tim: main point is multiplicity
13:28:53 <GK> I would say that (provenance data) is a web *resource* - the state representation is what is actually transferred.
13:29:04 <zednik> provenance metadata may be available from many sources and need not be globaly consistent?
13:29:29 <pgroth> Proposal: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources
13:29:36 <smiles> +1
13:29:45 <Satya> +1
13:29:46 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
13:29:49 <olaf> +1
13:29:49 <JimMcCusker> +1
13:29:50 <Yogesh> +1
13:29:50 <ericstephan> +1
13:29:50 <SamCoppens> +1
13:29:52 <zednik> +1
13:29:54 <RyanGolden> +1
13:29:54 <IlkayAltintas> +1
13:29:56 <GK> +1
13:29:58 <StephenCresswell> +1
13:30:02 <jcheney> +1
13:30:15 <Paolo> +1
13:30:22 <tlebo> -1 : should be "provenance of EntityState" OR we remove terms from the model.
13:30:27 <zednik> I redact the use of consistent in the earlier comment
13:30:44 <Paolo> this is about location. the point of consistency to be addressed later
13:31:22 <tlebo> I retract (we are not talking about the model)
13:31:31 <tlebo> 0
13:31:44 <Paulo> is this source in the "real world" or it does not matter?
13:32:10 <Luc> accepted: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources
13:32:44 <Paolo> Smiles: we are not discussing nature of source just now
13:33:05 <GK> Anyone can say anything about anything... including provenance.
13:33:25 <JimMcCusker> +1 to AAAP
<pgroth> ACCEPTED Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources
13:34:43 <pgroth> q?
13:34:54 <GK> Remember KISS: start with easy cases, then address identified gaps.
13:35:31 <Paolo> Paulo: whatever the solution to provenance encoding, it should be non intrusive wrt the underlying data
13:35:49 <tlebo> paulo: not changing a bit of a BOB while still being able express provenance of a BOB.
13:36:09 <Paolo> smiles: we are agnostic, some encodings may be intrusive
13:36:26 <Paolo> Paulo: at least one encoding should not be intrusive
13:36:39 <Paolo> smiles: the opposite may also be true
13:36:54 <smiles> Proposed: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all. 
13:36:59 <jcheney> +1
13:37:01 <Yogesh> +1
13:37:03 <olaf> +1
13:37:06 <Satya> +1
13:37:07 <zednik> +1
13:37:09 <SamCoppens> +1
13:37:11 <GK> +1
13:37:13 <IlkayAltintas> +1
13:37:16 <Paulo> +1
13:37:16 <StephenCresswell> +1
13:37:17 <Paolo> +1
13:37:18 <RyanGolden> +1
13:37:23 <Deborah> +1
13:37:28 <JimMcCusker> +1
13:37:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
13:37:38 <tlebo> +1
13:37:59 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.
13:39:49 <Paolo> Ilkay: change "thing" in previously accepted point
13:40:00 <olaf> q+
13:40:15 <tlebo> q+ protocols that allow third parties to submit pointers to provenance of a BOB.
13:40:24 <Luc> PROPOSED: The WG effort will concern how the provider of a BOB can supply information required to obtain access to some provenance of that BOB (which may, as a side effect, include recommendations on how others can do the same). 
13:41:10 <Paolo> on third point 
13:41:40 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a BOB may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.
13:42:01 <Paolo> olaf: this is focused on apporaches to provide provenance, but it is also important to allow provider to associate provenance /as part of the "thing"/
13:43:05 <Paolo> pgroth: propose to replace supply with obtain
13:43:16 <Paolo> luc: or "embed"?
13:44:31 <tlebo> pgroth: first-party ONLY providing access. OUT OF SCOPE: third party providing information about accessing provenance.
13:44:38 <Paolo> pgroth: example: WG is concerned with how a /data provider/ supplies provenance about it
13:44:48 <pgroth> q?
13:44:49 <tlebo> q?
13:45:16 <Satya> q+
13:45:22 <tlebo> q+ to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)
13:45:28 <Paolo> smiles: alternative is not to restrict on who supplies provenance, but that's too broad
13:46:01 <pgroth> ack loaf
13:46:07 <pgroth> ack ola 
13:46:08 <olaf> q-
13:46:26 <tlebo> (e.g. First Party is New York Times that makes article)
13:46:44 <Paolo> satya: do we need a distinction between first party and third parties (as in ex. above)
13:47:39 <tlebo> are we failing to support "down stream" provenance of a BOB created?
13:48:04 <Paolo> satya: eg embedded HTML link may not be from first party -- distinction may be difficult to make in practice
13:48:17 <tlebo> luc: provider vs author.
13:48:19 <GK> Third party provenance: NYT vs blogger not distinguished - trust is an orthogonal issue.  The resource provider has privileged access for indicating provenance sources - I think that's unavoidable.
13:48:26 <pgroth> q?
13:48:27 <tlebo> satya: "first party" gets blurry
13:48:42 <Luc> q?
13:48:42 <pgroth> ack Satya
13:48:42 <Satya> q-
13:48:44 <Paolo> satya: need to clarify "author", "first party", third party, "provider" as they may get blurred
13:48:48 <pgroth> ack tlebo
13:48:48 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)
13:49:06 <Luc> q+
13:49:31 <Paolo> tlebo: WG effort seems to be focused on first parties -- does this allow us to accept third party provenance of Bob's?
13:49:34 <GK> The point of the scope is to simplify things: so initially, make choices that simplify.  Later consider alternatives.
13:50:20 <Yogesh> q+
13:50:29 <Paolo> tlebo: a provider should be able to accept additional provenance of its Bob from a third party. this is key to establish a web of provenance
13:50:46 <GK> It's not up to the provider to "accept" third party provenance assertions.  The web allows anybody to say...
13:50:49 <Satya> How is defining the scope of the user affecting the workload of the PAQTF?
13:51:06 <pgroth> ack Luc
13:51:22 <GK> It avoids having to initially consider problems of third party discovery.
13:51:30 <GK> ^^ @satya
13:51:54 <Satya> @GK How? What are the problems of third party discovery?
13:52:09 <pgroth> q?
13:52:15 <pgroth> ack Yog 
13:52:22 <tlebo> smiles: first party provenance-of-BOB publishers accepting third party provenance-of-BOBs and choosing to include them is NOT out of scope.
13:52:24 <tlebo> q-
13:52:38 <tlebo> q+
13:52:40 <GK> @Satya:  I have a resource without provenance.  You publish provenance about that resource.  How does someone else discover that provenance?
13:52:58 <Paolo> Luc, smiles: w elmit the scope for the first draft only
13:53:15 <Paolo> s/w elmit/we limit
13:53:40 <GK> Sure, first draft only.
13:53:56 <Satya> @GK They either query the resource itslef (for embedded link) or they "llok it up on the web"
13:54:08 <Satya> itslef> itself
13:54:09 <tlebo> "letting third parties do what they want" is insufficient, because we are failing to support DISCOVERABILITY (which is part of ACCESS).
13:54:30 <GK> @Satya:  first approach requires provider to cooperate.  Latter is default - what more to specify?
13:54:38 <tlebo> q?
13:55:05 <Paolo> yogesh: starting point for discovering provenance is the provider
13:55:19 <pgroth> ack tl
13:55:45 <Satya> @GK why as a WG we are mandating "bob" providers to give access to the provenance of "bob"?
13:56:32 <GK> @Satya, we're not.  Just focusing first on those that want to.
13:56:44 <Paolo> tlebo: NYT should be able to supply provenance of its own image, but also of new versions of that image that may have been manipulated by somebody else
13:56:50 <SamCoppens> q+
13:57:28 <tlebo> q-
13:57:29 <Paolo> pgroth: the example is orthogonal to this proposal
13:57:49 <GK> Nothing is being excluded as an eventual possibility...
13:58:03 <Paolo> provenance being downstream etc is not the point here
13:58:08 <pgroth> q?
13:58:08 <Satya> @GK Anybody may want to - why should we discriminate between "first", "second" etc. providers?
13:58:14 <GK> ... my view (an experience) is that when a simple solution is on the table, it's much easier to see how tio engibneer more advanced solutions.
13:58:30 <GK> @SDatya.  Who said anything about disciminating.
13:59:26 <Paolo> Luc: should the draft editors be free to decide, as per previous point just accepted
13:59:50 <Satya> @GK We are trying to categorize "bob" providers as first, second, etc parties
13:59:54 <GK> We rule out nothing in the longer term.
14:00:27 <sandro> [[ Apologies, I need to step out for ~60 minutes, with my laptop, so no webcams either.   Very sorry. ]]
14:00:55 <GK> @Satya - I think one must recognize that the provider of a resource has control over metadata that accompanies that provision.  I see that is a given.  Beyond that, not attempting to categorize.
14:01:30 <pgroth> q?
14:01:35 <Satya> @GK ok - then we don't have to specify this explicitly since it is open/implicit anyway
14:01:38 <SamCoppens> q-
14:01:38 <Paolo> just moving on from here
14:01:40 <GK> Moive on?
14:01:48 <Paolo> slide 10
14:03:44 <Paolo> point 1: 3 options
14:03:49 <Luc> q?
14:03:56 <Luc> q+
14:03:57 <Yogesh> q+
14:04:06 <tlebo> q?
14:04:51 <GK> I think you meant to say "How do you find what it is provenance _of_"?
14:05:00 <Paolo> is this for this TF? the model has a notion of "prov container"
14:05:41 <Paolo> smiles: question is, what do you need (I,L, etc.) to gain access to provenance
14:05:48 <pgroth> q?
14:06:56 <GK> @paolo - I agree it's a model issue, but I think it's highly desirable that retrieved provenance data identifies what it is referring to.
14:07:04 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
14:07:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
14:07:53 <Paolo> satya: is the question how you associate P and I?
14:08:45 <GK> That is an assumption.
14:09:14 <Paolo> satya: realistic scenario is that you don't start from provenance, you start from the data (entity state)
14:10:43 <GK> One could imagine doing a web search to provide the most accurate available instance of some some data:  in this case one might find provenance first, then use that lo locate the resource.
14:10:59 <Paolo> clarification is needed: I is the URI (reference to) an entity state, not the entity state itself
14:11:33 <Luc> q?
14:11:44 <JimMcCusker> I think we've found another Bob...
14:12:02 <Paolo> satya: not clear how we identify entity states in the first place
14:12:08 <GK> My assumption is that BOBs have URIs (or may have URIs)
14:12:50 <GK> For a genuinely static resource, it's possible R == I (resource URI == BOBN URI)
14:13:39 <Zakim> -zednik
14:13:40 <Paolo> GK maybe you should get in the queue?
14:14:14 <Satya> q+
14:14:19 <Luc> q+
14:14:55 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:15:44 <JimMcCusker> q+
14:16:18 <GK> (I'd get on the queue, but the conversation seems to keep jumping around - not sure what I really want to respond to.)
14:16:27 <Zakim> +zednik
14:17:00 <pgroth> zakim, close the queue
14:17:00 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed
14:17:00 <Paolo> yogesh: difference b/w options a) and b) seems to be one of granularity
14:17:39 <tlebo> q?
14:17:40 <Paolo> q?
14:18:43 <Paolo> satya: are we assuming we have a "provenance container" with a single URI P for a set of provenance assertions?
14:19:44 <GK> My default position is that provenance is on the web, and as such may be a resource, and as such may (and often should) have a URI.  That deals (IMO) with 80-90% of the access mechanism.
14:20:21 <Paolo> smiles: either you need the ID (I) of a specific Bob, or the association is apparent and that's not needed
14:20:47 <Luc> q?
14:21:15 <Paolo> pgroth: we seem to be discussing the phrasing of the issue, rather than any specific solution
14:21:27 <Luc> ack satya
14:21:44 <Luc> i think the problem is important but not well posed
14:22:11 <pgroth> ack Luc
14:22:21 <Paolo> satya: don't think we should get into the "inverse relationship" P -> I
14:23:21 <GK> I would say that for the purpose of provenance *interchange*, it should be explicit what the provenance is about, even if it's implicit in its original form.
14:25:09 <Paolo> pgroth: it must be an issue, cannot just be ignored.
14:25:11 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
14:25:34 <GK> I can easily imagine a single RDF graph (provenance resource) that actually contains provenance of several BOBs.
14:26:01 <GK> Ah, it's not about saying the resource is about one subject *only*...
14:26:27 <tlebo> what slide is option B on?
14:26:31 <GK> ... just requiring that any given provenance information is explicit about what it's about.
14:26:37 <pgroth> slide 10
14:26:40 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
14:26:48 <pgroth> @tlebo slide 10
14:27:01 <GK> The problem with (a) is the "single"
14:27:28 <pgroth> q?
14:28:17 <GK> Drop the *only*
14:28:32 <GK> Yes, it is many-to-many
14:29:21 <Paolo> thanks GK :-)
14:29:42 <GK> (Actually, solutions that solve single issues cleanly often scale up very well.)
14:29:58 <Paolo> paolo: Bob-to-provenance is a M-M relataionship and we need a mechanism to traverse it in both directions
14:30:16 <Paolo> s/relataionship/relationship
14:30:48 <Paolo> satya: Bob->provenance is the only direction we can hope to traverse it
14:30:49 <jcheney> q+
14:30:54 <jcheney> q-
14:31:04 <pgroth> sorry james
14:31:44 <JimMcCusker> q-
14:32:49 <Paolo> (break)
14:32:56 <Zakim> -olaf
14:33:30 <pgroth> back in 15 minutes
14:34:14 <GK> @smiles: your slide 10, bullet 1, (a), suggest rephrase "(a) It is apparent from the data itself what thing(s) it describes the provenance of"
14:35:00 <Zakim> -zednik
14:45:05 <olaf> @GK , @smiles I like that rephrase
14:45:39 <Zakim> +zednik
14:45:51 <olaf> I have to go now; will try to tune in later again.
14:49:37 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
14:49:37 <edsu> edsu has joined #prov
14:49:53 <SamCoppens> topic: Session 6: Model Task Force
<luc>Summary: The definitions of concepts "time", "agent", and "ivp of" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).
<luc>subtopic: Time
14:49:54 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
14:50:42 <SamCoppens> Scribe: SamCoppens
#14:51:01 <SamCoppens> Topic: Model
14:51:34 <Luc> PROPOSED: assertions about time are useful but are optional
14:52:10 <JimMcCusker> +1
14:52:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
14:52:14 <tlebo> +1
14:52:16 <smiles> +1
14:52:17 <zednik> +1
14:52:17 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
14:52:18 <jcheney> +1
14:52:18 <SamCoppens> +1
14:52:21 <Luc> q?
14:52:23 <IlkayAltintas> 0
14:52:25 <Deborah> +1
14:52:31 <GK2> +1
14:52:41 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:52:56 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
14:53:03 <ericstephan> +1
14:53:05 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:53:10 <Yogesh> +1
14:53:12 <StephenCresswell> +1
14:53:23 <Vinh> +1
14:53:36 <RyanGolden> +1
14:53:49 <edsu> +1
14:53:51 <Satya> +1
14:53:53 <Paulo> +1
14:54:06 <Paolo_> +1
14:54:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED:  Assertions about time are useful but are optional
14:55:32 <SamCoppens> luc: Ordering of events
14:56:01 <Luc> q?
14:56:47 <SamCoppens> Paolo: it is important to have an understanding of the ordering of events, but it may be left out of the provenance 
14:57:09 <Paolo_> S/paolo/Paulo 
14:58:44 <GK> (Saying that a resource is used before it is generated is not the same as saying nothing about ordering.)
14:58:59 <Luc> PROPOSED: separate Time from (Event) Ordering
14:59:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: what is the reason to include Ordering
14:59:59 <IlkayAltintas> +q
15:00:24 <Paulo> q+
15:00:28 <Luc> zakim, open the queue
15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open
15:00:42 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:00:47 <Paulo> q+
15:00:47 <Luc> zakim, open the queue
15:01:01 <Deborah> q?
15:01:07 <IlkayAltintas> +q
15:01:15 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open
15:01:16 <SamCoppens> Luc: it is explanatory
15:01:45 <pgroth> akk Paulo
15:01:50 <Luc> q?
15:02:42 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
15:03:18 <GK> Yes. Not all metadata is provenance (but may still be useful, and provenance should not exclude non-provenance information)
15:03:24 <Luc> q?
15:03:38 <Satya> time dimension is the only criteria differentiating provenance and non-provenance metadata (my 2cs)
15:04:10 <Luc> ack Paulo
15:04:14 <smiles> q+
15:04:21 <Luc> q?
15:04:31 <IlkayAltintas> -q
15:04:50 <IlkayAltintas> q-\
15:04:52 <IlkayAltintas> q-
15:05:32 <SamCoppens> Luc: will ordering of events be considered
15:05:33 <pgroth> q?
15:05:53 <Luc> q?
15:06:09 <Luc> ack smi
15:06:55 <SamCoppens> SimonM: is this explanatory or a constraint
15:06:56 <Satya> @SimonM It needs to be a constraint
15:07:24 <Paulo> time issue 6 would lead us to talk about ccs, csp, temporal logics and dynamic logics among others. 
15:07:36 <smiles> @Satya oh, does it now?
15:09:45 <Satya> @SimonM ;)
15:09:51 <Luc> Issue: consider ordering of event in model and semantics
15:09:51 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-27 - Consider ordering of event in model and semantics ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/27/edit .
15:10:30 <Luc> q?
15:10:40 <pgroth> q+
15:10:42 <SamCoppens> Agent definition
15:10:49 <JimMcCusker> q+
15:10:53 <Luc> Subtopic: Agent
15:10:57 <Luc> q?
15:10:58 <zednik> q+
15:11:06 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:11:07 <Paolo_> q+
15:11:42 <Satya> q+ respond to Paul
15:11:46 <Luc> q?
15:11:56 <Deborah> +1 to paul's view- agents should be able to stand alone
15:12:02 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents just being able to exist in provenance description. Agents should be able to stand alone
15:13:10 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents should not always be bound to process execution
15:13:13 <Luc> ack Jim
15:13:44 <SamCoppens> JimMc: Agent is entity that can perform activity, but they must not be bound to activity
15:14:01 <Luc> ack zed
15:14:30 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:14:51 <Luc> ack paolo
15:14:51 <Satya> @Stephan, JimMc: "Capable of action" is provenance? - hypothetical scenario?
15:15:02 <JimMcCusker> "An Agent is an Entity that can perform activities. Agency can be inferred from the performance of an activity, but is not necessary."
15:15:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:15:54 <SamCoppens> Paolo: Agents do not depend on processes. If process execution includes participants, then you could have agents with a specific role related to a process execution
15:15:57 <Luc> q?
15:16:26 <Luc> q?
15:16:42 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:16:53 <Deborah> so this is just an optional property - that they can but are not required to perform anything.....   so in something like an OWL encoding, there would not be any constraint in the ontology - it would just have a min cardinality 0 on any role associated with hasActivity or something like it 
15:17:55 <Deborah> +q
15:17:56 <JimMcCusker> "Capable of action" simply means that they can participate in a process execution. This isn't provenance, but is used in provenance.
15:18:05 <Paulo> q+
15:18:33 <Luc> q?
15:18:48 <Luc> ack respond
15:18:48 <Zakim> respond, you wanted to Paul
15:19:00 <zednik> q+
15:19:17 <JimMcCusker> q+
15:19:23 <Luc> q?
15:20:11 <SamCoppens> Satya: agent is defined in respect to process execution
15:20:18 <tlebo> Isn't "Paul" and "Paul at MIT" just Entities being described in a BOB?
15:20:22 <zednik> What do we gain from differentiating paul the agent from paul the person?
15:20:23 <pgroth> q+
15:20:26 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
15:21:10 <smiles> q+
15:21:53 <SamCoppens> Khalid: is Agent entity or Bob
15:22:31 <Luc> q?
15:22:44 <Luc> ack khal
15:23:11 <Luc> ack Debo
15:23:15 <Deborah> Agent is a class One can be stated to be an agent COMPLETELY independent of performing any action or participating in any activity.  (supporting Paul’s statement). Independently there may be potentially multiple sufficient conditions for membership in the class  agent. One such example of a sufficient condition for membership in the class agent:  If something performs an particular kinds of activities (such as a process execution), then it will be inferred to
15:23:15 <JimMcCusker> Do you lose agency when you finish a process execution?
15:24:29 <GK> To the extent that an agent/agency is part of the provenance record, I think its "agency" (with respect to a given BOB) should be enduring.
15:24:39 <Luc> q?
15:25:04 <SamCoppens> Deborah: agents can be inferred from a process execution, but they can also exist on their own
15:25:09 <Luc> ack paulo
15:25:16 <JimMcCusker> +1 to deborah's proposal
15:26:35 <Paolo_> +1 to deb's def
15:26:57 <zednik> EntityState could be valid for an interval
15:26:59 <Luc> q?
15:27:00 <JimMcCusker> Isn't an assertion (verb) a kind of action? I don't see how you can assert an action, except to state that it happened.
15:27:50 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent a something that can assert things, asserting being an action.
15:27:54 <Luc> ack zedn
15:28:19 <Luc> q?
15:28:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:28:38 <tlebo> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.
15:28:51 <JimMcCusker> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.
15:29:16 <pgroth> q?
15:29:19 <Paulo> q+
15:29:33 <SamCoppens> StephanZ: Agent is an entity state
15:29:34 <zednik> q-
15:29:39 <Luc> ack Jim
15:31:02 <zednik> clarification \: if agent status is dependent on process execution, then agent would seem (to me) to be an entity state - BUT most communities have not taken this path in using the term agent
15:31:37 <zednik> clarification \: so I think for clarity and synergy with existing terminologies it would be easier to use Deborah's definition of agent
15:31:51 <tlebo> +1 assertion is an event that produces a BOB
15:32:06 <tlebo> q?
15:32:53 <Luc> ack pgro
15:33:13 <Satya> @PaulG: is an asserter an agent?
15:34:31 <zednik> if an agent is an entity than it would naturally have an entitystate
15:34:48 <Luc> ack smil
15:35:09 <SamCoppens> PaulG: agent is an entity capable of activity, it can be asserted to be an agent or it can be inferred from a process exectution. Introducing Agent State
15:35:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: Agent is Entity state, with invariant properties
15:36:22 <Luc> q?
15:36:43 <pgroth> q+
15:36:48 <IlkayAltintas> +q
15:36:51 <SamCoppens> SimonM: must Agent be included into the model
15:36:58 <Satya> q+
15:37:17 <zednik> audio is very quiet
15:37:28 <SamCoppens> SimonM: defining Agent in the model, can make it problematic to link to e.g. foaf:Agent, dcterms:Agent
15:38:25 <Luc> q?
15:38:26 <SamCoppens> Khalid: Agent can be involved in multiple process exections, which can be exectuted in overlapping time intervals
15:38:29 <Luc> ack khal
15:38:35 <pgroth> I think I've been convinced that agent = entity state
15:38:54 <pgroth> the point is that state keeps having this connotation of moment
15:38:59 <SamCoppens> Khalid: this would entity states with overlapping time intervals
15:39:02 <pgroth> which clearly it's not
15:39:35 <JimMcCusker> Still not convinced that agent = entity state. State is not the thing itself.
15:39:38 <Luc> ack paulo
15:40:21 <pgroth> @Jim - but you agree that agents have a fixed property right? (their being an agent)
15:40:37 <Luc> q?
15:41:15 <JimMcCusker> @Paul, yes, but a description of that state is not the entity itself. 
15:41:46 <Luc> q?
15:41:51 <Luc> ack pg
15:41:53 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent as en entity because e.g. trust is related to entities (agent) not entity states (agent states)
15:42:22 <zednik> @Jim, so how do (or should) we say that an entity is an agent for a given interval associated to an entity state?
15:42:32 <JimMcCusker> And as Paulo is discussing, it would be important to be able to say that my FOAF identity is me, and then the AgentState is the reference to my identity PLUS contextualization.
15:42:33 <Luc> q?
15:42:34 <Deborah> one of paulo's points was that if we have an agent as a subclass of entity state rather than entity, it is problematic to model a number of things including reputation
15:42:40 <JimMcCusker> q+
15:43:35 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agent is bob, but it does not mean it cannot have a lifetime
15:43:37 <Luc> ack Ilk
15:43:59 <Paulo> q+
15:44:24 <smiles> q+
15:44:31 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agent in the context of bob is a role
15:44:35 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:44:37 <smiles> q-
15:45:06 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agents as an entity, its roles as a bob in the context of provenance
15:45:15 <Luc> ack Sat
15:45:53 <pgroth> q+
15:49:17 <YolandaGil> I am wondering why we need to state that a participant in a process is an agent.  Why do we need to distinguish other participants from the "agents" in a process?  I think we only care if we want to ask for accoutability, if so we should have that term in the definition of agent.
15:50:08 <smiles> q+
15:51:12 <Luc> q?
15:52:25 <Luc> ack  Jim
15:54:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: An agent is a SOMETHING (TBD) capable of activity.  It can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred  to be an agent by involvement in a process execution.
15:54:52 <Luc> q?
15:54:55 <JimMcCusker> +1
15:55:04 <smiles> 0 (if we have to define it, this is good; I still believe it will lead less problems to exclude it from the model and let others use their own agency concepts)
15:55:31 <YolandaGil> I agree with Simon's comment!
15:56:19 <SamCoppens> Paulo: is *asserting* a process execution? If so, asserters are agents, otherwise not.
15:56:49 <Satya> +1
15:56:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:57:02 <RyanGolden> +1
15:57:06 <Paulo> -1
15:57:07 <SamCoppens> +1
15:57:07 <ericstephan> +1
15:57:09 <IlkayAltintas> +1
15:57:09 <JimMcCusker> @smiles: If we push "Agent" off of BOB to something else, then we can express agency indirectly and let other ontologies address it.
15:57:13 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
15:57:18 <jcheney> +1
15:57:25 <Paolo_> +1
15:57:26 <Deborah> possibly at least 2 things need to be addressed in followon to this - what is something ?  should we refine "involvement in a process execution"?  and is it related to assertion?
15:57:39 <zednik> +1
15:57:43 <tlebo> 0 concern about "involvement" not being "agency enough"
15:57:56 <YolandaGil> 0 for the same reason as Simon
15:58:06 <zednik> involvement -> participation?
15:58:16 <GK2> +0.5 (I think I agree, but don't know enough to be sure)
15:58:26 <JimMcCusker> @tlebo: involvement can be role-based, which would clarify what kind of agency.
15:58:26 <tlebo> (paulo hit me, we're both involved but Paulo was the agent and not me)
15:58:28 <Deborah> 0 also because we may want more refinement on "involvement"
15:58:42 <zednik> change vote to 0 for same reasons as tim and deborah
15:58:51 <Satya> +1 for involvement -> participation
15:59:07 <GK2> I'm assuming it will be useful in provenance record to say things like "Dr Spock collected this dataset"
15:59:28 <GK2> (My experience w/scientists suggests this is v important to them)
15:59:33 <JimMcCusker> Actually, @tlebo, I think @Paulo was the only agent. You had your BOB changed to a new one. He hit you in your BOB.
15:59:54 <Luc> q?
15:59:55 <JimMcCusker> +1 for involvement -> participation
15:59:58 <Paulo> An agent can be involved with a process execution and if the process execution is an assertion that the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.
16:00:09 <smiles> q-
16:01:47 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
16:02:18 <Deborah> discussion point - is an assertion a type of process execution?   
16:02:25 <Luc> if the process execution is an assertion, then  the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.
16:02:49 <GK2> @Paolo, who do you suggest this cannot be incorprated later? 
16:02:55 <GK2> s/who/why/
16:03:01 <Luc> q?
16:03:21 <pgroth> q-
16:03:25 <tlebo> roled involvements in a process execution: Tim is punch victim, Paulo is puncher (in another example: Paulo is asserter)
16:05:21 <Luc> Action to smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent
16:05:21 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
16:05:53 <Luc> Action: smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent
16:05:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].
16:06:28 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter
16:06:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].
16:06:47 <IlkayAltintas> IlkayAltintas has joined #prov
16:07:18 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter
16:07:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].
16:07:53 <Luc> action: zednik to reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement
16:07:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].
16:07:54 <YolandaGil> @tlebo: Remember our process is generating a bob, so we already implicitly identifying one of the participants as having a special status.  Your example I find is right but agency there is domain specific.  I'd rather keep the model as lean as possible.
16:08:31 <Luc> action: jimmckcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:08:31 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmckcusker
16:08:46 <Luc> action: jimmcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:08:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmcusker
16:09:00 <Luc> action: jimmccusker to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:09:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmccusker
16:09:21 <JimMcCusker> <- This is my handle
16:09:33 <Luc> action:  JimMcCusker  to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:09:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMcCusker
16:09:48 <sandro> trackbot, list users
16:09:48 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:10:00 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
16:10:03 <sandro> action: Jim  to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:10:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim
16:10:11 <sandro> action: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:10:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim
16:10:20 <Luc> action:  smiles  to provide justification for why agent is entity state
16:10:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 -  to provide justification for why agent is entity state [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].
16:10:38 <Luc> subtopic: IVP of
16:10:57 <sandro> action: James to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:10:57 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - James
16:10:57 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jcheney, jmyers4, jfrew, jmccuske)
16:11:28 <sandro> action: jmccuske to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:11:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Provide justification for why agent is entity [on James McCusker - due 2011-07-14].
16:11:32 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
16:12:32 <sandro> action: jimmc to provide justification for why agent is entity
16:12:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmc
16:13:49 <smiles> q+
16:13:51 <Luc> q?
16:14:01 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:14:02 <JimMcCusker> q+
16:14:07 <Luc> ack Paulo
16:14:11 <Luc> ack smiles
16:14:16 <GK2> Is there anything I can look at online to see this reviewed definition?
16:14:47 <GK2> Ah, the webcam's back :)
16:15:20 <pgroth> q+
16:15:53 <Luc> q?
16:16:17 <jcheney> @GK2: revised defn is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of
16:16:18 <GK2> I'm uncomfortable about defining invariant perspective in terms of properties... I suppose it works from a DL perspective, but I think of it more like a contextual constraint.
16:17:14 <JimMcCusker> For reference:
16:17:45 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, for reference http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9752413/abstractionInProvenance.pdf
16:18:29 <Satya> Khalid: The two points regarding properties of IVP entities is not enough for ensuring consistency
16:18:43 <Zakim> -[ISI]
16:19:20 <Satya> Luc: Consistency is responsibility of asserter (outside PIL scope)
16:19:24 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: thanks
16:20:08 <JimMcCusker> One change from previous discussions: Work in FRBR (I think) corresponds to Entity in PIL.
16:20:40 <GK2> I don't think FRBR patterns help here
16:20:57 <Luc> q?
16:20:59 <zednik> @Jim, I think FRBR:Entity corresponds to PIL:Entity
16:21:54 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: One issue with your last statement is that it may be a work of God
16:22:33 <zednik> q+
16:22:39 <Luc> ack khali
16:23:23 <GK> I don't  agree that BOBs are manifestations/expressions to resource/subject as Work
16:23:27 <Satya> JimMc: current definition of IVP satisfies scenario in FRBR
16:23:32 <SamCoppens> JimMc: referenced document justifies the proposed definition
16:23:39 <jcheney> q+
16:23:56 <Luc> ack Jim
16:24:08 <Luc> ack pgro
16:24:40 <GK> I think a BOB is essentially the same kind of thing as the original resource, but constrained in some way so that certain assertions are enduringly true where they would not be so for the original.  E.g. in a particular period or place.
16:25:04 <zednik> @GK, I agree, think ownership of a physical object
16:25:05 <Satya> PaulG: Why should two entities participating in IVP need to share properties (?)
16:25:12 <Luc> q?
16:25:21 <smiles> q+
16:25:32 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 I agree with Paul
16:25:32 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Role of IVP is to relate entity states, declaring they are the same
16:25:58 <Luc> q?
16:26:01 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Why need additional contraints
16:26:04 <Luc> ack zednik
16:26:06 <JimMcCusker> +1 to @pgroth's point.
16:26:55 <GK> Nice example.
16:27:04 <SamCoppens> Stephen: disagree with Work in FRBR corresponds to Entity in PIL
16:27:06 <Deborah> +1 for paul's comment - about 1 - why do we need to require the additional constraints  and 2 I would like to be able to say that A and B can replace each other (possibly for a given context)
16:27:21 <tlebo> zednik: the owner history of a book. The book is an Entity. The book owned by different owners over time are different EntityStates.
16:27:22 <GK> (Nice example = book changing ownership.)
16:27:53 <Luc> q?
16:27:59 <pgroth> q+
16:28:09 <Luc> ack jcheney
16:28:34 <Satya> q+
16:28:53 <JimMcCusker> I guess any level in FRBR can be considered an Entity in itself, and then there are IPV relations between any if their entity states.
16:29:06 <zednik> @Jim - I agree
16:29:17 <GK> @jim +1
16:29:22 <JimMcCusker> Good thing I didn't change the PDF, then. :-)
16:29:29 <Luc> q?
16:30:09 <Luc> ack smiles
16:30:38 <GK> @smiles +1 entities (turtles) all the way down
16:31:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:32:32 <JimMcCusker> Deborah, Tim, and I all represent RPI. :-)
16:33:03 <Luc> ack pgro
16:34:24 <Luc> issue: we need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity
16:34:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28/edit .
16:34:40 <Deborah> and do we want to refine that for a particular purpose?
16:35:33 <GK> When A is an IVP of B, assertions that are enduringly true of B are also enduringly true of A.  Further there may be some additional assertions  that are only transiently true of B  but are enduringly true of A.
16:35:48 <pgroth> @GK you like enduring truth don't you :-)
16:36:02 <Luc> action: zednik to formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book)
16:36:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].
16:36:29 <GK> @pgroth - I suppose :)  -- I think it is (close to) something that is key to provenance vs other metadata.
16:37:03 <smiles> @GK definitely agreed - coz what has happened has happened
16:37:52 <Luc> action: smiles to clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities)
16:37:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].
16:38:22 <zednik> do we have a distinction between IVP and EntityState?
16:38:28 <tlebo> @smiles, if it's not about sameness of entities, what is IVP about?
16:39:04 <Luc> action to pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28
16:39:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
16:39:18 <JimMcCusker> action pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28
16:39:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Formulate a mechanism for issue-28 [on Paul Groth - due 2011-07-14].
16:39:22 <smiles> @tlebo it is about relation between what is invariant about one bob and what is invariant about another - specifically that if one is the subset of another, then the provenance of one includes the provenance of another
16:39:43 <GK> (Maybe "enduring truth" -> "invariant truth")
16:39:44 <Satya> @zednick - exactly the question I wanted to ask
16:40:20 <GK> "tlebo - problem is that sameness can be hard to pin down, so appealing to it creates problem.  At some intuitive level, there is a degree of sameness.
16:41:05 <pgroth> @zednick @Satya - yes absolutely, entity state is just a way to identify entities through some invariant properties, no?
16:41:06 <GK> "corerespondence" assumes discrete properties to refer to.  This is why I prefer definition in terms of assertions rather than interms of properties.
16:41:14 <Luc> q?
16:42:00 <GK> @pgroth the way we use it, yes, but I worry about implications of "state"
16:42:04 <Luc> q?
16:42:08 <Luc> ack satya
16:42:47 <zednik> q+
16:42:51 <GK> For example, some models of "state" are strictly sequential, and invariants are not necessarily sequentially related.
16:43:30 <smiles> @GK I find a problem with defining in terms of assertions - in that it is not the assertions which need invariance. I agree that properties are invariant to some perspective/for some asserter.
16:43:59 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
16:44:42 <zednik> q-
16:45:23 <Satya> q-
16:45:27 <tlebo> what does IVP provide that doesn't fall out of overlapping descriptions of multiple EntityStates?
16:45:32 <Luc> action: satya to comment on future definitions of ivp of
16:45:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-07-14].
16:45:35 <Luc> q?
16:45:48 <GK> @smiles, I can live with properties, as that's what we generally deal with in Web descriptions.  But philosophically, I feel assertions are more fundamental.  (I think Quine wrote something about this.)
16:46:17 <zednik> @tlebo agreed, is there a constraint that an entity may only have one defined entitystate at a time?
16:46:41 <tlebo> to be continue :-)
16:46:44 <pgroth> @zednik I don't think so --- well it doesn't say it
16:46:45 <zednik> :)
16:46:45 <tlebo> d
16:46:49 <Luc> action: khalid to comment on future definitions of ivp of
16:46:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Khalid Belhajjame - due 2011-07-14].
16:46:53 <pgroth> anyway, lunch time!
16:47:01 <GK> OK -- that's me done here for the day.  I need to be elsewhere very soon, so good luck with the rest of the meeting.
16:47:02 <pgroth> back at 1:30pm EST
16:47:09 <pgroth> Thanks GK!!
16:47:20 <ericstephan> ericstephan has left #prov
16:47:21 <Zakim> -zednik
16:47:41 <Luc> action: jamesM to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1
16:47:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jamesM
16:47:57 <Luc> action: myers to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1
16:47:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 [on James Myers - due 2011-07-14].
16:48:54 <GK> (Watching Luc stretch on webcam is amusing - looks a bit robo-pop)
16:50:23 <Zakim> -GK
16:57:41 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has left #prov
17:07:08 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
17:32:01 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth, luc
17:33:36 <Zakim> +??P3
17:33:48 <Zakim> +zednik
17:33:49 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me
17:33:49 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
17:35:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, who is here?
17:35:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, dgarijo, zednik
17:35:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, IlkayAltintas, Yogesh, edsu, zednik, Satya, Paulo, GK2, JimMcCusker, Vinh, smiles, jcheney, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc,
17:35:24 <Zakim> ... ericP, stain, sandro, trackbot
17:36:03 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
17:36:17 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
17:36:34 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
17:36:34 <Luc> Scribe: Satya Sahoo
17:37:12 <Paolo> Paolo has left #prov
12:49:18 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 7: PAQ TF 
<pgroth> Summary: In this session, a plan for developing an access document was developed and a mechanism for helping to decide upon proposals was agreed upon. It was agreed to start with Graham's document as a starting point and to raise issues against that document once it was transferred to the W3C version control system. In order to evaluate various proposals, a use case scenario at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario was agreed upon. 
17:38:01 <Satya> SimonM: Reconcile the PAQTF proposals - review and document the issues
17:38:44 <tlebo> smiles: will need to enumerate requirements.
17:39:02 <Satya> SimonM: Requirements for the proposals should include reasons
17:39:29 <pgroth> q?
17:39:30 <tlebo> smiles: 1) plan for document and 2) proposals stating their requirements and why important.
17:39:33 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
17:39:35 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
17:40:21 <Satya> Yogesh: Need to discuss the metrics or guidelines for defining the proposals and the reasons associated with the proposals
17:40:41 <tlebo> yogesh: metrics would be used to evaluate each proposal.
17:40:45 <Luc> q+
17:40:57 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:41:06 <pgroth> q?
17:41:58 <Satya> Luc: Consider a scenario to identify the requirements
17:42:07 <tlebo> luc: example scenarios to support. e.g. getting something over email and browsing the web
17:43:41 <Satya> PaulG: The proposals are not too distinct and can be reconciled easily
17:44:21 <Satya> PaulG: Disagreements demonstrated with specific examples for given proposal
17:45:15 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
17:45:50 <pgroth> q?
17:45:53 <Satya> PaulG: Should start requirement gathering
17:46:05 <Satya> Should > should not
17:46:31 <Satya> SimonM: requirement gathering is in specific context of proposal
17:46:43 <Luc> q?
17:46:48 <khalidbelhajjame_> khalidbelhajjame_ has joined #prov
17:46:54 <Satya> Sandro: focus should be on use cases, which lead to indentification of requirements
17:46:59 <Satya> q+
17:47:08 <dgarijo> don't we have already a lot of requirements from the incubator?
17:48:13 <SamCoppens> @dgarijo indeed and they were gathered from the use cases
17:49:21 <Luc> Consider the following scenario. A user gains access to an online resource through browsing the web and downloading it, by receiving by email, transferring it via FTP, or by some other protocol. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the resource will be retrieved and displayed. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and w
17:49:34 <Satya> q-
17:51:02 <pgroth> q?
17:52:39 <Satya> PaulG: A document is created that receives comments/raise issue against the document
17:52:57 <Satya> SimonM: Graham has already created such a document
17:53:51 <Satya> Yogesh: Should the document include all proposals or one proposal?
17:54:12 <pgroth> q?
17:54:55 <Luc> q+ can we agree to on the scenario to support
17:55:22 <Satya> Paul/SimonM: Graham's proposal may be used as starting point
17:55:36 <Satya> Luc: Define a scenario today?
17:56:23 <pgroth> q?
17:56:48 <Luc> A user obtains an html document. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the document will be retrieved and displayed. Provenance is retrieved from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and where does that information come from?  We should consider that the htm
17:57:28 <GK2> I really have to go soon, but I notuce Simon mentioned something I drafted as an example: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html
17:57:42 <dgarijo> @GK2 thanks!
17:57:56 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
17:58:00 <GK2> The point was to use something like this as a focus for discussion, throw out stuff we don't want, add stuff we need, etc.
17:58:05 <Satya> Try and agree on a scenario for use by the PAQ TF
17:58:23 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
17:58:43 <GK2> (It uses ReSpec - seems to require browser console to fully geberate ToC -- dunno why)
17:59:39 <Satya> Luc: A specific example initially - html document
18:00:15 <pgroth> q?
18:00:19 <IlkayAltintas> q+
18:00:30 <sandro> q+
18:00:33 <Satya> Luc: Describes the provenance access scenario
18:01:18 <Satya> SimonM: If link is embedded in the html page, may not have to cover http-related issues (?)
18:01:43 <Satya> Ilkay: Is the content public or requires consideration of access control
18:01:59 <zednik> q+
18:02:43 <pgroth> ack Ilkay
18:02:52 <Satya> SimonM: Mention that provenance available in multiple format
18:03:44 <Satya> Sandro: The scenario should be described without using the term "provenance"
18:03:53 <pgroth> q?
18:03:53 <zednik> q-
18:04:01 <pgroth> ack sandro
18:04:45 <Satya> StephanZ: If we are using http get, then we don't need to explicitly mention access control
18:04:48 <sandro> sandro: It would be very nice, some day, to have this scenario given, without deference to the word "provenance", to explain why this WG is doing such cool stuff.
18:04:52 <Yogesh> q+
18:05:22 <zednik> q-
18:05:26 <Satya> simonM: We want consider only proposals and not specific solutions
18:05:41 <pgroth> q?
18:05:45 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
18:05:55 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
18:05:56 <Satya> Yogesh: Is this provenance w.r.t entire document or parts of the document?
18:06:11 <Satya> SimonM: Will it have impact on the access mechanism?
18:06:18 <pgroth> q?
18:06:43 <Luc> q+
18:06:55 <Paulo> q+
18:07:02 <Satya> q+
18:07:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
18:07:37 <sandro> q+
18:07:47 <IlkayAltintas> q+
18:07:56 <sandro> q-
18:08:00 <jcheney> q+
18:08:01 <Satya> Luc: We should review the scenario bullet points and leave the issues for later discussion
18:08:30 <pgroth> ack Paulo
18:08:58 <Deborah> +1 to allowing more flexibility on document type
18:09:05 <Satya> Paulo: Consider issue related to visualization of the provenance
18:09:27 <Satya> Paulo: Provenance visualization is not part of "access"
18:09:29 <Deborah> +1 to allowing "oh yeah" functionality BUT not including display of it as part of the scope
18:09:54 <pgroth> q?
18:10:27 <Satya> Luc: We consider only access and not visualization etc.
18:11:05 <Satya> Deborah: Replace "oh yeah" button with "oh yeah" functionality
18:11:15 <JimMcCusker> http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2008-12-24/orly.jpeg
18:11:19 <Satya> Luc: Modified scenario
18:11:26 <dgarijo> :D
18:11:36 <pgroth> q?
18:11:47 <pgroth> ack Satya
18:12:16 <pgroth> q?
18:12:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Satya: Does access have to reconcile information from multiple sources
18:12:36 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: outside of scope
18:13:06 <Paulo> q+
18:14:20 <tlebo> smiles: secure access and formats are "allowed"
18:14:21 <pgroth> ack Ilka
18:14:25 <Yogesh> q+
18:14:33 <zednik> +1 detailing access control is out of scope
18:14:54 <tlebo> ilkayaltintas: is provenance of document different from the scientific data? perhaps same scenario for two different usages?
18:15:20 <Luc> q?
18:15:22 <Luc> q+
18:15:34 <dgarijo> I'm just wondering... Why would you want to publish provenance if you are going to restrict the access to it?
18:15:38 <Deborah> +1 to keeping acces control out of scope of this working group
18:15:56 <tlebo> q?
18:16:07 <Luc> @dgarijo because you may want to have a paying service
18:16:36 <Satya> SimonM: Don't have make it domain specific
18:16:49 <dgarijo> @Luc true.
18:17:09 <Satya> q+ to respond to Ilkay 
18:17:25 <pgroth> ack jcheney
18:17:36 <Deborah> what if we change "html document" to web-based document minimally...... i would prefer to have no modifier on document though
18:17:45 <Satya> @ILkay HTML pages and data (on the web) are not necessarily distinct
18:17:53 <tlebo> Can http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario pick up from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample by having it s/A user obtains an html document. /A user obtains an html encoding of art1/ ?
18:18:26 <Luc> q?
18:18:27 <pgroth> q?
18:18:37 <pgroth> ack Paulo
18:18:38 <tlebo> newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1)
18:18:48 <Satya> James Cheney: We can replace html document with only document
18:19:06 <pgroth> q?
18:20:31 <tlebo> q+ to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))
18:20:40 <IlkayAltintas> @satya Agreed
18:21:21 <dgarijo> +1 to tlebo's proposal. It would be nice to see how the current approaches adapt to the proposed example.
18:21:54 <Satya> Paulo: Order of provenance documents to be retrieved should be out of scope of WG
18:21:59 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
18:22:16 <Satya> +1 to tlebo proposal
18:22:54 <tlebo> q?
18:23:08 <pgroth> ack tlebo
18:23:08 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart
18:23:11 <Zakim> ... (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))
18:23:38 <Satya> Tim: Can we reuse specific entity from journalism example - chart, document, report
18:24:30 <Luc> q?
18:24:38 <Satya> q-
18:25:34 <pgroth> ack Luc
18:25:46 <Satya> Luc: Agrees with Tim, but is concerned that this will require embedding provenance link in the document
18:26:17 <sandro> +1 luc Lets focus on "html document" for now.
18:26:29 <Satya> Luc: Taking the deadline for first document prepared by end of month, need to keep scenario as simple
18:26:39 <Deborah> what if we modify it to "the user obtains a document.  The initial scenario will focus on an html document"
18:27:23 <Satya> Tim: We can pick a single entity from the journalism example
18:27:33 <sandro> Maybe restrict HTML in this example to not be using script or img or object.
18:27:43 <Deborah> q+
18:27:48 <sandro> q+
18:28:18 <sandro> +1 deborah, "initial scenario is html"
18:28:33 <Satya> Deborah: What if we modify scenario to "document" from "html document"
18:28:57 <pgroth> ack sandro
18:29:00 <pgroth> ack Debo
18:29:10 <Satya> Sandro: We don't consider anything to be embedded in the html document
18:30:05 <Satya> Luc: Clarified that this is initial scenario and documented on wiki page
18:30:07 <dgarijo> @Sandro and what about the proposals which propose to embedd provenance in the html?
18:30:19 <dgarijo> +q
18:30:58 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
18:31:32 <Satya> DanielG: Are we going to extend the initial example?
18:31:56 <pgroth> q?
18:32:18 <Satya> PaulG: First point of the scenario is accepted 
18:33:45 <Satya> Yogesh: Add retrieval to access (for second point in example)
18:35:22 <pgroth> q?
18:35:55 <Satya> PaulG: Second point accepted with modification
18:36:15 <pgroth> q?
18:36:32 <RyanGolden> RyanGolden has joined #prov
18:36:52 <Deborah> what about  Provenance may be accessed from the document provider as well as from third-parties. 
18:37:19 <Deborah> q+
18:37:49 <Luc> q?
18:38:43 <Paulo> q+
18:38:47 <Yogesh> q+
18:38:55 <pgroth> ack Deborah
18:39:13 <Satya> Deborah: Modification to acessibility from multiple sources
18:39:17 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
18:39:24 <pgroth> ack Paulo
18:39:43 <Satya> Yogesh: Defer issue of partial access to after publication of first draft
18:41:45 <Satya> PaulG: Third point is accepted
18:42:35 <Paulo> provenance may be represented as a distributed graph and accessing the graph may imply accessing the graph fully or partially
18:43:08 <Paulo> ... and accessing the provenance my imply accessing the graph...
18:43:17 <Satya> q+
18:44:08 <pgroth> ack Saty
18:44:11 <Yogesh> q+
18:44:58 <IlkayAltintas> q+
18:45:11 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
18:47:35 <Yogesh> q+
18:47:42 <pgroth> ack Ilkay
18:49:29 <pgroth> action: Yogesh to rephrase into user scenario and questions about access
18:49:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Rephrase into user scenario and questions about access [on Yogesh Simmhan - due 2011-07-14].
18:49:33 <pgroth> q?
18:50:41 <Deborah> +1 to satya's point - where it comes from is not part of the access task force.   the form of the query to get the information should be but not where it is from
18:51:27 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
18:52:29 <pgroth> q?
18:54:35 <Satya> PaulG: Point 4 accepted
18:54:49 <pgroth> q?
18:55:30 <Satya> Ilkay: Document can be received in multiple ways
18:55:50 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
18:56:10 <dgarijo> @Satya. Has it been rephrased finally? (sorry, the quality of the sound isn't pretty good)
18:56:45 <Zakim> +[ISI]
18:57:05 <Satya> @DanielG - the fourth point?
18:57:14 <dgarijo> @Staya yes
18:57:27 <dgarijo> *Satya
18:57:42 <Satya> yes, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
18:57:58 <Satya> @DanielG - we now have two sub points
18:58:38 <dgarijo> @Satya thanks!
19:00:12 <Satya> SimonM: The method of obtaining the document has implication for access
19:00:42 <Satya> Sandro: email based mechanism to obtain document illustrates that document may not have stable URL
19:01:05 <pgroth> q?
19:01:53 <Satya> PaulG: point 5 is accepted
19:02:33 <Satya> Sandro: Email method for obtaining document does not include URL, but may have metadata
19:04:05 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
19:12:54 <RyanGolden> RyanGolden has joined #prov
19:12:55 <pgroth> q?
19:13:15 <Satya> PaulG: We should consider that provenance providers can make provenance available in different formats
19:13:28 <sandro> maybe...  "Provenance information might, potentially, be allowed to be published/consumed using various different formats and protocols"
19:14:24 <sandro> Paul wants us to consider that the provenance might be provided in a Word Document, identified by content type.
19:14:34 <pgroth> q?
19:14:43 <sandro> (that is, that the same mechanism can be used in many ways.(
19:15:20 <Satya> point 6 modified: "Multiple formats for provenance may be available from the provider or third parties. The "Oh yeah?" feature may want to select which format to retrieve. "
19:15:33 <Satya> PaulG: point 6 accepted
<pgroth> ACCEPTED: To use http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario as a scenario to compare various proposals
19:15:46 <dgarijo> I have to leave. See you!
19:15:53 <Zakim> -dgarijo
19:16:01 <Zakim> -[ISI]
19:16:06 <Zakim> -zednik
19:35:25 <Zakim> +zednik
19:36:16 <Yogesh> smiles: start with GK's document as starting point
19:36:45 <Yogesh> identify ibg issues to resolve. Others who have given proposals to pick holes in it.
19:36:51 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
19:36:59 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
19:37:06 <Yogesh> GK's document not in wiki. 
19:37:27 <pgroth> action: GK to move his paq document to the w3c site
19:37:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14].
19:38:20 <pgroth> action: smiles to enact the plan for the paq 
19:38:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Enact the plan for the paq  [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].
19:38:53 <Yogesh> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
19:39:52 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:49:11 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 8: Planning 
<pgroth> Summary: Plans for each of the Task Forces were confirmed from other sessions. For the Model Task Force and PAQ Task Force the following process is adopted: each task force will create a draft document in W3C style, issues will then be raised against those documents, those issues will then be iteratively resolved until the public working drafts are due. The documents being produced are  the conceptual model, formal model (i.e. owl ontology), and an initial provenance access document. Additionally, in this session it was decided that the formal model would take the form of a light weight OWL ontology that also is "natural rdf". Finally, it was discussed that we need better connections to the RDF working group to ensure that Named Graphs are properly supported. Sandro will initiate this discussion and we aim to find a member that participates in both working groups to actively convey the Provenance WG's point-of-view in the RDF Working Group.
19:40:08 <Yogesh> pgroth: Model TF document put in W3C style. All open issues to be raised against it.
19:40:38 <pgroth> action: Paolo to make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style
19:40:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style [on Paolo Missier - due 2011-07-14].
19:41:17 <Yogesh> Luc: To start writing a schema. Included as part of Model TF effort.
19:41:44 <Yogesh> PaulG: other two TF's identified their plan yesterday
19:42:22 <jcheney> (Following on IRC from airport; can't get through on Skype.)
19:42:45 <Deborah> I would like to do one in OWL
19:43:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: Not yet talked about designing schema. People responsible for working on schema need to consider rfds, riff, etc. To decide an initial schema language
19:43:00 <pgroth> q?
19:43:02 <Deborah> +1
19:43:36 <Yogesh> smiles: any real objection to using owl?
19:44:11 <Yogesh> sandro: only reason is that there is some "anti-owl".
19:44:38 <Yogesh> Deborah: start with a smaller profile of owl. Not require reasoner. No rule extensions.
19:45:30 <jcheney> As someone who is not anti-OWL but also not familiar with OWL, I hope we can minimize the amount that I (and people with similar background) have to learn...
19:45:39 <Yogesh> pgroth: can we do this in owl and have an rdf-s schema?
19:47:15 <Yogesh> Deborah: start in owl to ensure ontology modeling mindset. But try and use only parts that can map to RDF-S and flag those portions that do not map.
19:47:27 <Yogesh> sandro: is there a tool to flag this difference automatically?
19:48:35 <Yogesh> sandro: we could have full interchange between owl and rdf-s
19:50:26 <Yogesh> pgroth: is there lite weight owl? owl-lite!
19:50:49 <Yogesh> Deborah: write owl-lite in sleep
19:51:37 <Yogesh> Paulo: have been collecting provenance examples. not much reasoning happening.
19:51:44 <sandro> sandro: We can do a big OWL ontology, and people can still use our Provenance Vocab that know and care nothing about that ontology.
19:52:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: most work on pmhas been on cardinalty constraints aand alue restriction
19:53:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: concern about 3 months time constraint
19:53:58 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: scoff has ambiguity
19:54:27 <Luc> s/scoff/skos
19:54:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: enough expertise in the table. learning curve can be addressed.
19:55:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
19:55:13 <Luc> q+
19:55:31 <Yogesh> Deborah: can work on own encoding for initial terminology. attempt to no go beyond owl-lite and simple profilkes of owl2
19:56:12 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: can we start from concepts rather than language? what is the expresiveness required for these concepts?
19:56:44 <Deborah> good point from khalid - from what i have heard, i think we need subclass, subrole, cardinality restrictions, value restrictions
19:56:51 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: even owl may not end up being expressive enough. e.g. specifying mapping, correspondence betwen properties of different entity states
19:56:57 <pgroth> q?
19:57:10 <pgroth> ack kh
19:57:21 <pgroth> ack Luc
19:57:31 <Deborah> agree that ivp may not have all of its constraints (and I am not sure I understand the nuances of ivp)
19:57:45 <Yogesh> Luc: stephen is user of provenance for data.gov.uk. does he have requirement for owl/rdf as a user?
19:58:43 <Yogesh> Stephen: would like to use inference. had to add restrictions into opm. 
19:59:27 <Yogesh> Luc: is Stephen happy with owl lite profile as a user?
19:59:38 <Paulo> q+
19:59:48 <Yogesh> Stephen: if it allows us to make the inferences we make, but doubt it will
20:00:16 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: some things best described using swrl rules 
20:00:28 <Yogesh> Satya: swrl superceeded by rif
20:00:59 <Yogesh> Stephen: dont expect end user to make inferences. 
20:01:16 <Luc> q+
20:01:17 <pgroth> ack Paulo
20:01:36 <Luc> q-
20:01:39 <Yogesh> Paulo: learnt that its difficult to generate consistent provenance
20:02:02 <JimMcCusker> Q=
20:02:04 <Yogesh> Paulo: using just triple store to avoid breaking provenance
20:02:04 <JimMcCusker> q+
20:02:35 <JimMcCusker> q?
20:02:53 <Yogesh> Paulo: nice to have consistent view, but enforcing can cause problems on how provenance is captured and stored
20:03:02 <Yogesh> Satya: ths is about logical consistency
20:03:43 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: catch things that may be wrong vs. expand realm of what is known
20:03:56 <Deborah> Jim mcc tries not to focus on catching inconsistencies but instead on "expanding the realm" using things like hasValue
20:04:11 <Deborah> +q
20:04:18 <pgroth> ack Ji
20:04:33 <pgroth> q+
20:04:37 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: should focus on expanding knowledge than constraining it
20:04:47 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
20:05:24 <Yogesh> Deborah: focus on maximizing reuse. minimize restrictions, use more general value restrictions. Were using restrictions in our owl model over time.
20:05:45 <Deborah> I also focus on maximizing reuse in my modeling style - thus i err on the side of having weaker restrictions rather than tighter restrictions
20:06:30 <Yogesh> pgroth: only concern is to ensure that when we release first draft in the sem web and linked data groups, the modeling using predicate/objects will be more natural
20:06:33 <Satya> q+
20:06:54 <pgroth> ack Deborah
20:06:56 <Deborah> ? was the "unnaturalness of the RDF serialization" due to the modeling or just the use of RDF?
20:06:57 <Yogesh> pgroth: make things simple to drive adoption
20:07:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
20:07:10 <JimMcCusker> q+
20:07:14 <GK> [Reviewing] I notice Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14], which I'm happy to accept.  But will need help, as I *really* want the document source to be version-controlled.  I believe W3C site has SCM facilities, but I'd need to know what they are and how to use them.  I have a definite preference for Hg/Git over Svn.   @sandro, can you help with details.
20:07:42 <Yogesh> Luc: i wrote owl, so it seemed unnatural
20:08:45 <Yogesh> Luc: owl that was not readable by humans. Had to reconcile opm-v and opm-o.
20:09:06 <StephenCresswell> +q
20:09:12 <pgroth> ack Sat
20:09:48 <Yogesh> Satya: issue was not about how the owl representation looks like. graph to owl causes n-ary relationships.
20:10:23 <Yogesh> Satya: jun interepreted n-ary relationships as binary to make it compatible with owl
20:10:49 <pgroth> ack Jim
20:11:34 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: n-ary relationships show everywhere i go. But owl2 seems to be able to add annotations to statements (Deborah: yes).
20:11:50 <Yogesh> Satya: no verification in owl2
20:12:05 <Yogesh> reification
20:12:06 <Luc> q?
20:12:08 <Luc> q+
20:12:19 <pgroth> ack Step
20:12:57 <Yogesh> StephenCresswell: opm-o was not readable to humans, but opm-v was. Also, some inferences were more easily doable.
20:13:28 <pgroth> ack Luc
20:13:56 <Yogesh> Luc: we will want named graphs in provenance serialization. will owl route help?
20:14:05 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need graphs, but graph literals
20:14:19 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need *named* graphs, but graph literals
20:14:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: tried to make a persuasive case before. can i come to that call again?
20:15:08 <Yogesh> Luc: need to come up with a usecase for named graphs to convince them
20:15:40 <Yogesh> sandro: groups will review each others drafts. it will be clunky. human overlap between the two groups will be more smooth.
20:16:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: Pat Hayes from rdf WG is an invited expert to facilitate coordination with our group
20:16:45 <Yogesh> sandro: have a joint task force beween two groups?
20:17:04 <Yogesh> Luc: can bring issue up to coord WG as co-chairs
20:17:16 <Yogesh> sandro: quite WGs get ignored
20:17:52 <Yogesh> sandro: will take writeup to rdf WG and will call for backup if i cannot convince
20:18:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: make decision in interest of time?
20:18:47 <Luc> q+
20:19:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: attempt a light weight, usable, natural RDF, easy to write sparql queries?
20:20:04 <Yogesh> Satya: linked open data do not follow schema. 
20:20:14 <Yogesh> pgroth: we cant ignore them
20:20:48 <Deborah> I have a clear picture of what lightweight OWL is.  I understand layering issues with respect to reasoning.  I do not have a clear operationalization of what "natural RDF is or easy to write sparql" is
20:21:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: design schema with a thought to the instance data being simple
20:21:08 <Luc> q+ to document provenance feature requirements in terms of OWL profiles
20:22:03 <Yogesh> Luc: provenance features: reasoning over transitive closure, event order, time, prov statements being compatible, etc. People working on schema need to document these features 
20:22:39 <Yogesh> Tim: can help with readability
20:23:16 <Yogesh> Stephen: natural => graph on whiteboard is same as rdf graph
20:23:19 <Zakim> -zednik
20:23:23 <Deborah> +1
20:23:58 <Zakim> +zednik
20:24:23 <Yogesh> Luc: point raised before. need to discuss for 5mins. model has to be described in natural language and illustrated graphically. Not abt graphical notation.
20:24:54 <Yogesh> Luc: this requirement is in the charter. do we still need it?
20:25:06 <Yogesh> All in the group responded Yes
20:25:23 <Yogesh> Luc: will start using graphical notation to illustrate examples
20:25:39 <pgroth> ACCEPTED: use owl for the schema deliverable but with the reminders to try to have  "lightweight" owl and to make it "natural rdf"
20:25:42 <Yogesh> Paulo: have graphical tool that will help with opm-like illustration
20:26:34 <Yogesh> Luc: can we define a minimal set of conventions? e.g. edges for derivation, process are boxes,  entity states are ellipses, etc.
20:26:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: *illustrations* better than notation
20:27:11 <Yogesh> Luc: not a "full language" since there are too many things
20:28:15 <pgroth> no a full language
20:28:20 <pgroth> not a full language
20:28:25 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
20:28:49 <zednik> *clap clap clap*
20:30:17 <Zakim> -zednik
#20:35:54 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
20:35:55 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has ended
20:35:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Meeting_Room, zednik, GK, olaf, [ISI], dgarijo
21:35:01 <GK> GK has left #prov
22:42:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00001079