From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:53:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-irc 14:53:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:53:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:53:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:53:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:53:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:53:24 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2011 14:53:28 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:53:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 14:53:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:53:36 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 14:53:40 <Curt> I will scribe 14:53:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22 14:54:08 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 14:54:14 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes 14:54:25 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 14:54:31 <pgroth> there you go Curt 14:54:35 <pgroth> thanks for stepping up 14:55:46 <Zakim> +??P7 14:55:59 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa 14:56:06 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:56:15 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me 14:56:15 <Zakim> +stain; got it 14:56:54 <pgroth> Regrets: Helena Deus, Stephan Zednik, Christine Runnegar 14:57:59 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:58:11 <satya> satya has joined #prov 14:58:30 <Zakim> +??P48 14:58:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P48 is me 14:58:41 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:58:48 <JimMyers> JimM has joined #prov 14:59:11 <Zakim> +??P49 14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P53 14:59:34 <Zakim> +??P8 14:59:41 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb 14:59:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me 14:59:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 14:59:50 <Zakim> -??P49 14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P17 14:59:51 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov 14:59:59 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 15:00:08 <Zakim> +??P29 15:00:08 <Luc> zaim, ??P17 is me 15:00:12 <James McCusker> Zakim, +1.518.276.aabb is me 15:00:12 <Zakim> +JimM; got it 15:00:18 <GK> zakim, ??p29 is me 15:00:18 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:00:18 <Luc> zakim, ??P17 is me 15:00:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:00:41 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aacc 15:01:15 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aacc is me 15:01:15 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it 15:01:19 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov 15:01:44 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:01:45 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd 15:02:03 <Zakim> +??P12 15:02:12 <tlebo> zakim, aadd is me 15:02:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 15:02:54 <pgroth> Topic: Admin 15:02:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-15 15:03:04 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 15 telecon 15:03:06 <satya> +1 15:03:08 <Curt> +1 15:03:09 <Paolo> +1 15:03:11 <tlebo> +1 15:03:14 <stain> +1 15:03:14 <StephenCresswell_> StephenCresswell_ has joined #prov 15:03:15 <JimMyers> +1 15:03:18 <dgarijo> +1 15:03:47 <JimMcCusker> 0 (did not attend) 15:03:52 <Zakim> +Sandro <Curt> Topic: Action Items to Review <Curt> Summary: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents that may be of interest to the group 15:03:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P36 15:04:36 <Curt> pgroth: action on Satya superceded by Sandro's work we'll cover later -- close it 15:04:44 <khalidbelhajjame> zkim, ??P36 is me 15:04:51 <pgroth> Reviews for RDB2RDF working group specs 15:05:08 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- 2011-09-22 telecon agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22 15:05:09 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents 15:05:21 <Curt> ... may be of interest to this group 15:05:42 <Luc> q? 15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P36 is me 15:06:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:06:05 <Curt> Luc: do they want us to look at a specific section? 15:06:15 <khalidbelhajjame> what is RDB2RFF? 15:06:28 <khalidbelhajjame> RDB2RDF 15:06:32 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:06:38 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF is working on relational databases 15:06:45 <Curt> ... not sure which sections we might be interested in 15:06:50 <Paolo> @khalid: mapping from Relational to RDF 15:06:57 <Curt> ... follow up to mailing list <Curt> Topic: Scribes <Curt> Summary: Need them, please sign up. 15:06:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes 15:07:08 <Curt> ... need scribes, please sign up 15:07:11 <satya> I was part of the RDB2RDF incubator group and worked on a survey - may have mentioned about provenance in that, I will try to review it 15:07:27 <Zakim> +??P16 15:07:38 <jcheney> zakim, ??P16 is me 15:07:38 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:07:46 <pgroth> q? 15:07:55 <pgroth> Topic: Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion <Curt> Summary: Met with RDF group to discuss named graphs to determine potential changes to RDF that could support provenance requirements. Sandro provided a unifying use case. 15:08:01 <Curt> pgroth: sandro to summarize RDF discussion 15:08:11 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-15 15:08:32 <Curt> sandro: last week we had a common meeting with RDF group, many from both groups 15:08:51 <Curt> ... didn't get as far as we wanted, missing some common language 15:09:13 <Curt> ... trying to determine what is needed in RDF to support provenance requirements 15:09:24 <Curt> ... where will we need RDF to support provenance 15:09:34 <Curt> ... provenance of RDF is needed by both groups 15:09:41 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:09:51 <Curt> ... sandro took action item to develop use case 15:09:52 <Zakim> +??P24 15:10:00 <Curt> ... which was sent to both groups 15:10:24 <Curt> ... unifying use case combining multiple inputs to determine trust 15:10:46 <Curt> ... use case of restaurant reviews is a simple stand in for overall use case 15:11:07 <Curt> ... didn't schedule next telecon, but follow up on mailing list rdf-prov 15:11:22 <pgroth> q? 15:11:27 <Curt> ... hopefully make progress on addressing issues from both groups 15:11:28 <pgroth> q? 15:11:57 <Curt> pgroth: is it clear what this group needs to provide? 15:11:57 <tlebo> what was the rdf + prov list address? 15:11:58 <pgroth> q? 15:12:06 <Curt> ... what is the path forward? 15:12:20 <Curt> sandro: we haven't decided on a path forward yet 15:12:28 <Curt> ... still waiting on responses to use case 15:12:47 <jcheney> +q 15:12:53 <Curt> ... would be good to hear comments, either that is right, or here's how to change it 15:13:04 <GK> (Seems to me that we need to understand each others' language and expectations before charting a route forwards) 15:13:22 <Curt> ... please comment and feed back to sandro 15:13:41 <pgroth> ack jcheney 15:13:57 <tlebo> email@example.com 15:14:09 <Curt> jcheney: didn't attend telecon, use case reminded of incubator use cases 15:14:23 <Curt> ... someone familiar with incubator use cases may want to take a look 15:14:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements 15:14:43 <Curt> ... incubator had a short paper on named graphs for RDF that could help 15:14:53 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/ 15:14:55 <GK> @Sandro: one reason you may not get responses is the requirement to participate in yet another mailing list 15:15:09 <Curt> sandro: please summarize large documents, since people won't read the large docs. 15:15:19 <pgroth> q? 15:15:29 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/images/3/3f/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-submitted.pdf 15:15:46 <Curt> pgroth: another issue - our conceptual model has different versions/serializations 15:16:09 <Curt> ... we could figure out how to convert our stuff into current RDF 15:16:24 <Curt> ... it is hard to determine how RDF might change 15:16:30 <GK> @pgroth +1 15:16:39 <GK> q+ to disagree with sandro 15:17:05 <Curt> sandro: RDF lacks mechanism to express endorsement of triples 15:17:09 <JimMcCusker> q+ 15:17:36 <Curt> GK: disagree - there are ways to express those things 15:17:47 <Curt> ... RDF has those mechanisms, maybe complicated, but possible 15:18:12 <Curt> ... could develop simpler mechanisms to handle them 15:18:21 <tlebo> graph literals? 15:18:24 <Curt> ... what should we call them instead of named graphs? 15:18:29 <Curt> ... just 'graphs'? 15:18:31 <pgroth> ack GK 15:18:31 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree with sandro 15:18:38 <satya> graph literal is interpreted differently from named graph 15:18:41 <pgroth> ack JimM 15:18:44 <pgroth> q? 15:18:47 <sandro> (it's possible to do this in RDF if you define your own vocab, but there's no standard/interoperability) 15:19:13 <Curt> JimMcCusker: could use graph hashes to handle referring to the graph 15:19:16 <satya> q+ 15:19:22 <Curt> JimMcCusker: there are solutions out there 15:19:26 <GK> @JimM - sounds like a possibility I had in mind... 15:19:29 <pgroth> ack satya 15:19:32 <Curt> satya: we are conflating two issues 15:19:53 <sandro> JimM, please suggest them to public-rdf-prov? 15:19:57 <Curt> ... when you refer to a URL, the reponse you get today is different from tomorrow 15:20:11 <Curt> ... if the application needs the version, that can be modeled 15:20:25 <Curt> ... it is a modeling issue 15:20:33 <sandro> (it can be modeled, but we need a standard for how to model it, otherwise there is no interop.) 15:20:33 <GK> @satya +1 15:20:34 <Curt> ... don't mix up that with changes needed to RDF model 15:20:41 <pgroth> q? 15:20:45 <JimMcCusker> https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/wiki/frbr:mccusker2012parallel 15:20:52 <tlebo> I'm wondering how "provenance of contents in named graphs" differs from "provenance of contents in files on disk". 15:21:01 <Curt> pgroth: thanks sandro -- we'll try to help 15:21:04 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure it does. 15:21:06 <pgroth> Topic: Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model <Curt> Summary: Discussed mapping, conceptual model will drive formal model, but constraints of technology and ambiguities may require iteration with conceptual model to clarify concepts and ensure they can be adequately represented. Primary target of the formal model is the semantic web stack, but the conceptual model will also enable other technologies, keep interoperability in mind as the models develop. 15:21:07 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel 15:21:24 <GK> @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ 15:21:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:21:28 <JimMyers> One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy... 15:21:33 <sandro> tlebo, maybe the tools are different. n3 has nice syntax for it. 15:22:04 <Curt> paolo: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model 15:22:14 <Curt> ... conceptual model will drive formal model 15:22:16 <JimMcCusker> sandro, I can take that as an action. 15:22:35 <Curt> ... if OWL2 falls short, we can address 15:22:55 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aaee 15:23:09 <Curt> ... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model 15:23:21 <smiles> zakim, ??24 is me 15:23:21 <Zakim> sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24' 15:23:22 <Curt> ... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like 15:23:27 <Curt> ... consider other direction 15:23:29 <pgroth> q? 15:23:30 <smiles> zakim, ??P24 is me 15:23:30 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 15:23:58 <Curt> ... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model 15:24:21 <Curt> satya: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL 15:24:37 <Curt> ... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities 15:24:45 <Curt> ... they have proposed ways to model information 15:24:56 <Curt> ... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there 15:25:03 <Curt> ... are subtle differences 15:25:30 <Curt> paolo: some things won't map into OWL2 easily 15:25:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me 15:25:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it 15:25:38 <Luc> q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies 15:25:46 <pgroth> q? 15:25:58 <Curt> satya: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages 15:26:11 <GK> @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now 15:26:18 <Curt> ... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification 15:26:43 <Curt> ... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it 15:26:57 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 15:27:08 <GK> q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack 15:27:11 <Curt> paolo: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed? 15:27:30 <khalidbelhajjame> The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best" 15:27:50 <Curt> ... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack 15:28:20 <GK> @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL 15:28:31 <Paolo> Q? 15:28:39 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, agreed 15:29:06 <Curt> satya: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first 15:29:08 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:29:08 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies 15:29:14 <Curt> ... then we'll address OWL2 representation 15:29:23 <pgroth> can't hear you well 15:29:30 <GK> @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts 15:29:32 <Curt> Luc: <breaking up> 15:29:44 <stain> Luc - we can't hear you well 15:29:49 <Paolo> Luc going dalek... 15:29:56 <Zakim> -GK 15:29:59 <Curt> Luc: provenance ... something ... 15:30:59 <Curt> pgroth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies 15:31:17 <Curt> ... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across 15:31:24 <Luc> thanks paul 15:31:50 <pgroth> q? 15:31:54 <Paolo> q+ 15:32:21 <Luc> my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability 15:32:32 <Curt> satya: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using 15:32:49 <Curt> ... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack 15:32:52 <pgroth> graham you on the phone? 15:33:02 <Curt> ... it may not be possible to please every technology 15:33:33 <Curt> paolo: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack? 15:33:44 <Curt> paolo: that can affect our design choices 15:33:56 <pgroth> q? 15:33:59 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:34:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo 15:34:11 <Curt> satya: agreed, there are semantic web constraints 15:34:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful 15:35:00 <Curt> ... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation 15:35:32 <Curt> paolo: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check 15:35:35 <pgroth> q? 15:35:39 <pgroth> ack GK 15:35:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack 15:35:40 <stain> and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about 15:35:47 <Zakim> +??P6 15:35:48 <dgarijo> @khalid: I think you're right 15:36:38 <Curt> GK: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack? 15:36:39 <pgroth> q? 15:37:03 <Luc> as the ONLY stack supported? 15:37:11 <Curt> pgroth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2 15:37:28 <Curt> satya: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together 15:37:59 <Curt> pgroth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies 15:38:12 <GK> @Luc: as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others. 15:38:22 <satya> @GK +! 15:38:24 <satya> +1 15:38:35 <Curt> ... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies 15:38:36 <Luc> from charter: 15:38:38 <Luc> The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today. 15:39:05 <Curt> paolo: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern 15:39:12 <satya> q+ 15:39:14 <tlebo> btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value. 15:39:18 <pgroth> ack satya 15:39:32 <Curt> satya: ideally we should just support semantic web 15:39:48 <Curt> ... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things 15:39:57 <Luc> why do we have a conceptual model then? 15:39:59 <Curt> ... we should keep that in mind 15:40:10 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:40:14 <tlebo> @luc, regarding "just RDF"? 15:40:20 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 15:40:24 <pgroth> q? 15:40:39 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies 15:40:59 <pgroth> q? 15:41:03 <Curt> ... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies 15:41:12 <Luc> thanks khalid 15:41:28 <Curt> pgroth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints 15:41:50 <GK> @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too) 15:41:53 <Curt> ... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break 15:41:53 <Paolo> q+ 15:41:59 <stain> but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost 15:41:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo 15:42:13 <Curt> paolo: modeling of roles still needs work 15:42:30 <Curt> ... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me 15:42:56 <Curt> ... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications 15:42:59 <pgroth> q? 15:42:59 <GK> @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF 15:42:59 <Luc> if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology? 15:43:33 <satya> @GK +1 15:43:38 <Curt> pgroth: we need to see where things are hard to represent 15:43:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK +1 15:44:02 <Curt> ... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode 15:44:12 <Zakim> +stain 15:44:20 <Curt> paolo: it is an ongoing process, 15:44:24 <pgroth> q? 15:44:25 <Zakim> -stain 15:44:49 <pgroth> q? 15:44:53 <Curt> satya: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group 15:44:54 <Luc> q+ 15:45:15 <Curt> Luc: how do we progress? 15:45:35 <Curt> pgroth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model 15:45:38 <Luc> proposal: park roles for now, and move on 15:45:57 <Curt> ... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that 15:45:57 <pgroth> q? 15:46:03 <Luc> ack 15:46:05 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:46:33 <Curt> satya: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy 15:46:51 <Curt> ... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model 15:46:58 <Luc> why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'? 15:47:00 <GK> @satya: +1 15:47:01 <Curt> ... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model 15:47:09 <Curt> ... iterative feedback to make them match 15:47:29 <Curt> satya: roles is one issues, there are others 15:47:51 <Curt> satya: e.g. versioning perspectives 15:47:52 <GK> q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier 15:48:07 <Zakim> +??P5 15:48:09 <Luc> saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document 15:48:12 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me 15:48:12 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:48:17 <pgroth> ack GK 15:48:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier 15:48:42 <Curt> GK: difficulty is in coming to understanding. latest version of the model has helped clarify some things 15:48:48 <satya> sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis 15:48:57 <Curt> ... recent direction has helped discussion progress 15:49:00 <khalidbelhajjame> GK: I agree, the last version is much clearer 15:49:21 <dgarijo> I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion. 15:49:26 <Curt> pgroth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them 15:49:39 <pgroth> Topic: Conceptual Model <Curt> Summary: New iteration release for discussion. Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately. 15:49:49 <satya> @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :) 15:49:51 <Curt> paolo: New iteration released for discussion 15:49:58 <Curt> paolo: few comments so far. 15:50:09 <Curt> ... that version has many improvements that address issues 15:50:15 <dgarijo> @Satya :) 15:50:19 <Curt> ... several things resolved pending review 15:50:45 <Curt> ... addressing Khalid's comments 15:50:53 <Curt> ... process is converging 15:51:11 <Curt> ... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon 15:51:20 <Curt> ... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things 15:51:34 <Curt> ... planning to address remaining issues 15:51:35 <GK> +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :) 15:52:08 <Curt> ... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others 15:52:09 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them. 15:52:23 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them. 15:52:26 <satya> @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report? 15:52:33 <Curt> ... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can 15:52:34 <pgroth> q? 15:52:49 <Curt> ... issue 89, 99 need work 15:52:54 <Zakim> -Vinh 15:53:01 <GK> Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss 15:53:11 <pgroth> q? 15:53:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft? 15:53:47 <Curt> Luc: Yes, correct 15:54:12 <Curt> Luc: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release 15:54:13 <GK> q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus 15:54:23 <Curt> pgroth: please raise major blocks asap 15:54:40 <Curt> GK: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open 15:54:47 <satya> @GK - I agree 15:54:51 <Curt> pgroth: correct 15:54:53 <sandro> agreed. wd does not need to be consensus. 15:54:55 <Luc> i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed 15:55:18 <sandro> but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue. 15:55:20 <Curt> pgroth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers, 15:55:27 <Curt> ... prior to release to public, raise them now 15:55:55 <Curt> GK: are we ready to release and ask for public comment. 15:56:08 <Curt> paolo: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of? 15:56:33 <Curt> paolo: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags 15:56:55 <Luc> @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on? 15:56:56 <GK> I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :) 15:57:10 <pgroth> Topic: Formal Model <Curt> Summary: New release addressing many issues, some more remain. It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example. 15:57:13 <GK> @luc I'll try 15:57:32 <Luc> @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow 15:57:38 <Curt> satya: formal model has been updated with help 15:57:58 <Curt> ... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped 15:58:11 <Curt> ... pre-release to this group soon 15:58:39 <Curt> ... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful 15:58:57 <Curt> ... scientific workflow extension to be included 15:59:08 <Zakim> -Luc 15:59:25 <Curt> ... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model 15:59:35 <Curt> ... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model 16:00:01 <Curt> ... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model 16:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model 16:00:13 <Curt> ... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes 16:00:17 <Curt> ... iterative process 16:00:27 <Paolo> Q? 16:00:29 <GK> q- 16:00:34 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 16:00:34 <Zakim> khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model 16:00:48 <JimMcCusker> @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that. 16:00:52 <pgroth> q? 16:00:57 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset? 16:01:18 <satya> @Jim - thanks 16:01:22 <Curt> pgroth: a correct set is more important than to be complete 16:01:32 <pgroth> q? 16:01:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, thanks 16:01:35 <satya> @Paul: thanks 16:01:38 <pgroth> q? 16:01:43 <dgarijo> @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model. 16:02:03 <satya> @Daniel: no 16:02:07 <Curt> pgroth: please get comments on everything in 16:02:12 <Curt> ... need to vote on public releases 16:02:13 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:02:15 <Zakim> -smiles 16:02:16 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:02:18 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yogesh 16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro 16:02:24 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:02:26 <Zakim> -stain 16:02:26 <jorn> jorn has left #prov 16:02:28 <Zakim> -JimMyers 16:02:30 <Zakim> -jorn 16:02:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth 16:02:42 <Zakim> -??P6 16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:02:48 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000427