From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 10:22, 17 October 2011 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:35:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:35:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-irc 14:35:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:35:31 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:35:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:35:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:35:34 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:35:34 <trackbot> Date: 13 October 2011 14:35:35 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:35:35 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 25 minutes 14:35:49 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.13 14:36:02 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:36:10 <Luc> Scribe: Daniel Garijo 14:36:18 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:36:22 <Luc> Topic: Admin <luc> Summary: Last week's minutes were approved. Reminder: sign up for Scribe! 14:44:19 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:46:52 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 14:47:59 <Luc> @dgarijo, hi daniel, everything is set up for you 14:48:31 <dgarijo> Hi Luc, thanks a lot! 14:53:51 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:55:12 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:56:05 <satya> satya has joined #prov 14:56:06 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:56:10 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 14:57:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:57:17 <Zakim> +??P4 14:57:20 <Zakim> +Luc 14:57:23 <Zakim> +??P6 14:57:29 <pgroth_> pgroth_ has joined #prov 14:57:30 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P4 is me 14:57:30 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 14:57:42 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P6 is me 14:57:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 14:58:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:58:22 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:58:31 <pgroth_> Zkaim, +[IPCaller] is me 14:58:32 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 14:58:47 <pgroth_> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me 14:58:47 <Zakim> +pgroth_; got it 14:58:48 <Zakim> +stain 14:59:04 <stain> finally recognized by the conference bridge! 14:59:12 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 14:59:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:53 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov #15:00:16 <Zakim> +bringert 15:00:21 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.13 15:00:24 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 15:00:54 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa 15:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aabb 15:01:02 <Zakim> +??P38 15:01:11 <Paolo> zakim ??P38 is me 15:01:20 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see khalidbelhajjame, Luc, dgarijo, pgroth_, stain, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], +329331aaaa, +1.509.375.aabb, ??P38 15:01:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see Paolo, SamCoppens, smiles, Curt, pgroth_, khalidbelhajjame, satya, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro 15:01:27 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaaa is me 15:01:36 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 15:01:52 <satya> zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:02:03 <Zakim> +satya; got it 15:02:03 <dgarijo> Luc: look at the name of the formal model 15:02:31 <dgarijo> ... review of the agenda. Any other issues? 15:02:45 <Luc> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of Oct 06 telecon 15:02:48 <satya> +1 15:02:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:02:50 <dgarijo> +1 15:02:50 <Curt> +1 15:02:51 <SamCoppens> +1 15:02:56 <stain> +1 15:02:56 <Paolo> +1 15:03:24 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of Oct 06 telecon 15:03:45 <dgarijo> Luc: no actions to review in the tracker. 15:03:54 <dgarijo> ... scribes still needed. 15:03:58 <Luc> TOPIC: Name for 'ex-formal model' document <luc>Summary: Last week, we decided to drop the 'formal model' terminology, which was confusing. The group decided to adopt 'prov-o' as the short name for the PROV Ontology. 15:04:23 <dgarijo> ... formal name was confusing 15:04:42 <stain> q+ 15:04:47 <dgarijo> ... what are the proposals of the ontology? 15:05:01 <Luc> q? 15:05:07 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov 15:05:09 <stain> PROV Ontology (PROV-O) 15:05:11 <Zakim> +??P11 15:05:12 <dgarijo> stain: prov-ontology 15:05:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Prov-O 15:05:25 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:05:26 <Luc> ack stain 15:05:34 <JimMcCusker> Zakim, ??P11 is JimMcCusker 15:05:40 <pgroth_> +q 15:05:42 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions lists current proposals 15:05:43 <dgarijo> Luc: any counterproposal? 15:05:51 <Zakim> +JimMcCusker; got it 15:05:55 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 15:06:07 <Luc> ack pgr 15:06:23 <dgarijo> pgroth: is prov-o general enough? (there could be other serializations not in owl). 15:06:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:06:39 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan 15:06:46 <dgarijo> ... for instance if we use riff. 15:06:52 <satya> @Pgroth: yes, I think that is a good point - hence we did not include OWL or OWL2 in name 15:07:02 <dgarijo> stian: should cover any technology in the future as well. 15:07:06 <Luc> q? 15:07:14 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov 15:08:02 <Luc> q? 15:08:06 <pgroth_> ok seems fine to me 15:08:11 <dgarijo> satya: ontology should be enough to adress the technology issues. 15:08:12 <stain> @Satya +1 (sound is not too bad, btw) 15:08:14 <khalidbelhajjame> For other technologies to which we want to map the provennce model, we can use PROV-ASN 15:08:24 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111013/ does look slightly strange.. is it 0 or O? 15:08:50 <dgarijo> Luc: comments: is ti 0 (zero) or O ? 15:08:55 <stain> or http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ for the latest version 15:08:58 <dgarijo> s/ti/it 15:09:19 <dgarijo> Luc: at some point we'll have to tackle named graphs. 15:09:28 <stain> Stian: Not particularly bothered by o/0 - just esthetics. 15:09:30 <pgroth_> +q 15:09:35 <dgarijo> Luc: is it still right to talk about provenance ontology in that case? 15:10:03 <dgarijo> pgroth: by using "ontology" we could include everything under that 15:10:06 <Luc> ack pgr 15:10:07 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan 15:10:15 <Luc> sandro ?? 15:10:48 <Luc> q? 15:11:05 <Paolo> prov-OM? 15:11:06 <dgarijo> Luc: if we decide this name, will we be able to change it in the future? 15:11:26 <dgarijo> ... prov-ONTO was also prpoposed 15:11:42 <pgroth_> +q 15:11:42 <dgarijo> stian: an ontology is already a model. 15:12:03 <dgarijo> stain: maybe the name should be similar to the paq document. 15:12:05 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:12:13 <satya> @Paolo PAM :) 15:12:49 <stain> @dgarijo - no, I meant that access-and-query is not a model, perhaps an architecture :) I meant that all 3 names won't match up with "model" 15:12:54 <Luc> q? 15:12:57 <Luc> ack pg 15:12:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:13:03 <dgarijo> pgroth: people on the mailing list say provenance ontology. prov-o captures it well. Maybe prov-sw, but is not a big issue 15:13:05 <Luc> PROPOSED: to adopt 'prov-o' as the short name for the PROV Ontology 15:13:12 <satya> +1 15:13:13 <JimMcCusker> +1 15:13:14 <dgarijo> +1 15:13:17 <Curt> +1 15:13:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:13:19 <SamCoppens> +1 15:13:20 <Paolo> +1 15:13:22 <stain> +1 15:13:22 <ericstephan> +1 15:13:28 <smiles> +1 15:13:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: to adopt 'prov-o' as the short name for the PROV Ontology 15:13:49 <pgroth_> +q 15:13:55 <Luc> ack pg 15:14:01 <dgarijo> pgroth: how do we say it? 15:14:13 <satya> @Pgroth: like Bravo :) 15:14:17 <Curt> Rhymes with Bravo 15:14:26 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM FPWD <luc>Summary: the prov-dm document will be released as first working draft on Oct 18th. A release statement was prepared by Paul. The connection task force is ready to engage with its various stakeholders. 15:14:29 <satya> as Curt pointed out earlier ? 15:14:39 <dgarijo> Luc: date of release. 15:14:42 <kai> kai has joined #prov 15:14:55 <JimMcCusker> @Pgroth, I think that SKOS managed to avoid people knowing, I don't think it matters. I'm a skier, so I'll probably pronounce it like the city. :-) 15:14:58 <dgarijo> paolo: it is done. Have you got the url for it? 15:15:22 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html 15:15:52 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2 15:15:53 <dgarijo> ... the situation is that the document reflect the discussion on some of the issues (not all) 15:16:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/ 15:16:46 <dgarijo> ... some of these received enough discussion that has not been reflected in the document, but working on it. Other discussion (as in event), does not map directly to some of the issues. 15:17:09 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:17:11 <dgarijo> ... what is going to happen next? 15:17:39 <dgarijo> Luc: try and prepare a timetable to see where we want to go in the next months 15:18:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:18:13 <dgarijo> ... bring proposals to vote for the next telecon, in order to be able to deliver the documents to the W3C on the dates 15:18:38 <dgarijo> paolo: where is the input is going to come from? 15:18:55 <pgroth_> the paq doesn't get to say anything ;-) 15:19:11 <dgarijo> ... already been interacting with other groups. 15:19:32 <Luc> q? 15:19:34 <satya> q+ 15:19:43 <Luc> ack sat 15:20:14 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:20:27 <dgarijo> satya: regarding the issues that I was trying to raise: the role of constraints. We were trying to model the constraints in the ontology. 15:20:39 <dgarijo> ... suggest set of constraints as best practices. 15:20:42 <Luc> q? 15:21:26 <dgarijo> ... how should we consider this? 15:21:43 <Luc> q? 15:21:44 <satya> ok thanks 15:21:44 <dgarijo> Luc: we should not address this rigtht now (not the right time9 15:21:56 <dgarijo> s/9/) 15:22:53 <Luc> but this important, and we need to have this debate within the WG 15:23:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: we have an official statement that weill go out to get responses from the people. Divulgation of the report. 15:23:24 <Luc> q? 15:23:53 <dgarijo> Luc: connetion of the task force report. 15:24:55 <dgarijo> eric: drafted some text with kai. Share some of it with Pgroth. 15:24:55 <khalidbelhajjame> would it be possible to share the text with everybody in the working group, just to see if ether are itmes that need to be discussed within the WG 15:25:08 <dgarijo> ... everyone is welcome to join the meeting 15:25:18 <Luc> q? 15:25:38 <kai> +1 (not on the phone today, just reading the minutes) 15:25:48 <Luc> topic: Towards prov-o document fpwd <luc>Summary: Satya updated the working group about progress on the prov-o document. Action is set on Satya to ensure that all Data Model terms appear in the prov-o document, to justify why other terms have been introduced in the ontology, and to explain how the ontology can be seen as a lightweight schema for an rdf serialization. 15:25:51 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html is current draft 15:26:42 <dgarijo> satya: update on the document. 2 directions: 1) to meet some of the syntatic requirements (most of it done) 15:26:42 <khalidbelhajjame> Items to report from the Formal model (or ontology) group 15:26:44 <khalidbelhajjame> - Working on validating and making the html document compliant with the requirements. 15:26:46 <khalidbelhajjame> Satya identified the tasks need to be done for that purpose, and we assigned the list of tasks among ourselves. 15:26:48 <khalidbelhajjame> I believe that most of the issues has already been dealt with. 15:26:49 <khalidbelhajjame> - The OWL ontology was modified to be in line with the PROV-DM. 15:26:51 <khalidbelhajjame> - Similarily, the HTML document was updated to include classes and properties and be in line with the PROV-DM. 15:26:53 <khalidbelhajjame> - The Diagram representing the ontology was also updated. The diagrams representing the examples (Crime-File and workflow provenance) may still need to be modified to relect the new changes. 15:26:54 <khalidbelhajjame> - Satya is working on the constraints. 15:26:56 <khalidbelhajjame> - Any other thing Tim, Stian? 15:27:20 <dgarijo> stian: added namespaces and fixed images (relative paths vs external links to the wiki). 15:27:34 <dgarijo> ... did xhtml vs html4. We can do either. 15:27:36 <satya> @Khalid: nice documentation! 15:27:58 <Luc> q? 15:28:09 <dgarijo> satya: the second direction: we are aligned with the data model as much as possible. 15:28:22 <pgroth_> +q 15:28:29 <Luc> q? 15:28:33 <dgarijo> Luc: estimated release date? 15:29:07 <dgarijo> satya: last week we released one. We are continuing the process. 15:29:36 <dgarijo> ... right now can be considered as a released document. 15:30:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: wondering on the status on putting all the concepts of the datamodel into the ontology model 15:30:42 <khalidbelhajjame> There is a section at the end of the document that identifies the concepts (relations) that are not considered in the ontology yet 15:30:43 <Luc> and vice-versa! 15:30:43 <dgarijo> ... you could give an idea of which concepts are NOT yet defined in the ontology. 15:31:00 <dgarijo> @khalid, did we add the shortcuts too? 15:31:14 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, not yet 15:31:43 <dgarijo> @khalid, then we should :) I'll give it a try afterwards. 15:31:50 <Luc> q? 15:31:53 <Luc> ack pg 15:32:00 <dgarijo> satya: will do that later 15:32:08 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, yeas please go ahead, and we can discuss it in the next (Monday) telecon 15:32:38 <dgarijo> Luc: very important point. 15:32:40 <Luc> This document is part of a set of specifications aiming to define the various aspects that are necessary to achieve the visition on inter-operable interchange of provenance information in heterogeneous environments such as the Web. This document defines the PROV-DM data model for provenance, accompanied with a notation to express instances of that data model for human consumption. Two other documents, to be released shortly, are: 1) a normative serialization of PRO 15:33:12 <Paolo> visition -> vision :-) 15:33:15 <stain> : 1) a normative serialization of PROV-DM in RDF, specified by means of a mapping to the OWL2 Web Ontology Language; 2) the mechanisms for accessing and querying provenance. 15:33:16 <Luc> , specified by means of a mapping to the OWL2 Web Ontology Language; 2) the mechanisms for accessing and querying provenance. 15:33:45 <stain> @Paolo, I like visitations :) Kind of invitation-visits 15:34:14 <Luc> q? 15:34:24 <dgarijo> Luc: it should be clear to readers that all the concept on the data model document are taken in consideration in the ontology. And viceversa: if something is not on the datamodel, then it should be clear too 15:34:49 <dgarijo> satya: the owl ontology is modelling of the data model, not necesarilly a mapping. 15:35:18 <dgarijo> satya: Agrees with Luc, but some of the concepts may not be "encodable" in owl. 15:36:01 <dgarijo> ... we may not be able to map the model directly 15:36:07 <dgarijo> ... in to owl. 15:36:42 <Luc> q? 15:36:47 <dgarijo> Luc: we are going to serialize the model in RDF, that is the message sent to the semantic community. 15:37:23 <dgarijo> ... Ivan was raising is that the kind of the ontology. Is owl-dl? is it simpler? 15:37:31 <stain> I think it's OWL-Lite at the moment 15:37:50 <pgroth_> could you talk about that in the document 15:37:50 <stain> but depending on how much of the constraints we need to describe it might increase to DL 15:37:59 <dgarijo> satya: it should not be owl-full, since it is not decidable. 15:38:00 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:38:23 <Luc> is it OWL2-RL? 15:38:26 <dgarijo> we haven't found anything that constraint us to anything more that owl dl 15:39:02 <dgarijo> we haven't specified any specific constraints yet 15:39:09 <Zakim> +??P4 15:39:29 <stain> it's closer to RDFS, plus owl:IrreflexiveProperty, etc 15:39:34 <satya> PROV-O has DL expressivity of ALR+ 15:39:37 <Luc> q? 15:39:38 <dgarijo> Luc: share the documents to get feedback from Sandro, Ivan and others. 15:39:42 <pgroth_> q+ 15:40:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:40:30 <Luc> action on satya to ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document 15:40:30 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on 15:41:08 <dgarijo> pgroth: sum up of what has been decided in the telecon 15:41:16 <satya> @Pgroth: lightweight? 15:41:41 <satya> q+ 15:41:48 <Luc> action satya to ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document, to justify why other terms are introduced, and to explain lightweight nature of owl ontology 15:41:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document, to justify why other terms are introduced, and to explain lightweight nature of owl ontology [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-10-20]. 15:41:50 <pgroth_> q- 15:41:56 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:42:00 <dgarijo> @Luc, thanks for recording it. 15:42:07 <pgroth_> q+ 15:42:13 <Luc> ack sat 15:42:16 <dgarijo> satya: what do we mean by lightweight? 15:42:21 <satya> q- 15:42:45 <satya> @Pgroth :) 15:42:50 <Luc> ack pg 15:42:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:43:23 <dgarijo> pgroth: (too much noise) when we say it's the rdf community means that not doing any crazy modelling of the ontology. 15:43:35 <Zakim> +??P8 15:43:57 <dgarijo> satya: stian has already demonstrated that we can use the ontology for some examples in different scenarios 15:44:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P8 is me 15:44:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:44:08 <stain> agree 15:44:22 <Luc> topic: Interoperability <luc>Summary: A position document on inter-operability was presented. It is meant as a starting point for a discussion on inter-operability. The WG will have to decide what it means for implementations to inter-operate to reach the level of recommendation. Suggestions were made about test-suites and validator services. The WG is invited to contribute to the Wiki page and/or initiate email discussions on this topic. The co-chairs will engage with the leads of the Implementation and Test Cases Task Force to see how we can proceed forward. 15:44:24 <stain> to not scare away people who have been bitten by the massive-owl-full-ontologies 15:44:37 <pgroth_> @stain - exactly 15:44:50 <dgarijo> Luc: we will have to decide what we mean by interoperability 15:44:54 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Interoperability 15:45:00 <dgarijo> ... no answers yet 15:45:23 <dgarijo> ... document with some ideas to see if it makes sense. 15:46:10 <dgarijo> ... the document sumarizes the charter and certain aspects: define the data model independant of any toechnology and mapping to certain technologies. 15:46:30 <dgarijo> ... given this, what do we mean by interoperability? Ennumerated 3 types. 15:46:58 <dgarijo> ... it is not a complete set of types of interoperability. It is just to start the discussion. 15:47:31 <dgarijo> ... the first one: not loose any information when changing the representation. 15:47:56 <satya> q+ 15:48:18 <dgarijo> second one: different representation with different forms of inference. What you inferr in one representation is desireable to be inferred in the other one. 15:49:05 <dgarijo> ... thir one: similar to the provenance challenge objective: different provenance systems recording provenance in different formats: end to end interoperability through systems. 15:49:32 <dgarijo> ... terms in different vocaubaries: ns for the datamodel, ns for the ontology. Is it possible to reuse common urls? 15:49:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:49:59 <dgarijo> ... this might not be complete yet, but enough to initiate the debate. 15:50:05 <Luc> q? 15:50:08 <stain> what is declared in http://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ ? "role" and "type" only? 15:50:10 <dgarijo> ... opinions? 15:50:25 <dgarijo> satya: on what context are we discussing this? 15:50:37 <stain> s/prov/prov-dm/ 15:51:23 <dgarijo> Luc: to reach the level of recommendation, we should have at least 2 different approaches that are interoperable 15:52:04 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov 15:52:32 <Luc> q? 15:52:36 <Luc> ack sat 15:52:43 <dgarijo> satya: data integration. If we are using RDF for the formato of data integration, are we saying that we are going to define a new set of technologies, or reuse the existant ones? 15:52:46 <satya> q- 15:53:06 <dgarijo> khalid: prov language as an interchange format 15:53:32 <Luc> q? 15:53:35 <dgarijo> ... what is expresable with our language that is not with other languages 15:53:37 <Luc> ack kha 15:53:46 <dgarijo> ... and what are our limitations? 15:53:55 <Luc> q? 15:54:05 <dgarijo> +q 15:54:17 <Luc> ack dg 15:54:30 <satya> sorry I have to leave now, will try to follow up on this discussion over mails #15:54:54 <Zakim> -bringert 15:55:10 <Luc> q? 15:55:32 <Zakim> -satya 15:55:51 <pgroth_> echo 15:55:53 <Paolo> q+ 15:55:53 <stain> Zakim, who is making noise? 15:56:00 <pgroth_> no 15:56:01 <stain> mute please 15:56:04 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (46%), dgarijo (45%), ??P38 (49%) 15:56:20 <stain> dgarijo: could you put it on IRC as well what you said? 15:56:50 <Luc> q? 15:56:54 <Luc> ack pao 15:57:02 <pgroth_> q+ 15:58:00 <dgarijo> dgarijo: we should not restrict ourselves to the vocabularies that model provenance , but also show examples with some tools (Taverna, wings, etc). We should look for potential clients that can adopt our model. 15:58:05 <Luc> ack pgro 15:58:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: what do we mean by interoperable between 2 serializations? 15:59:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: how do we check that one serialization has used correctly the other one? 15:59:09 <ericstephan> q+ 15:59:12 <dgarijo> ... build test cases 15:59:23 <Luc> ack eri 16:00:16 <dgarijo> eric: how introperable are you? 16:00:36 <stain> convert testcase format a1->b1->a2->b2->a3 - compare a2 and a1 manually, automatically compare b2==b1 and a2==a3 16:01:04 <Paolo> the design of compliance test cases should be central to the interop effort 16:01:41 <dgarijo> eric: seeing R model in owl. 16:01:52 <dgarijo> eric: explain how we did the connections 16:02:00 <dgarijo> ... between 2 serializations. 16:02:22 <Luc> q? 16:02:29 <dgarijo> Luc: the integration aspect is crucial, and potentially can be linked to some docs. 16:02:50 <pgroth_> we have a task force for this? 16:02:51 <pgroth_> no? 16:02:56 <dgarijo> Luc: paolo, do you have an idea of how the compliance test cases should look like? 16:02:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Is it just me who think that talking about interoperability between different serializations of the same model is unusual? 16:03:10 <pgroth_> so maybe we should we start to engage this task force 16:03:31 <stain> I don't think interoperabable X would need to express anything we have in PROV? 16:03:40 <dgarijo> paolo: how do you know that your serialization is compliant with the good one? 16:03:43 <Zakim> -JimMcCusker 16:03:51 <JimMcCusker> gotta run to another call, TTYL 16:03:56 <Luc> q? 16:04:11 <pgroth_> q+ 16:04:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:04:25 <dgarijo> pgroth: task force on this? 16:05:06 <khalidbelhajjame> -q 16:05:09 <dgarijo> Luc: engage the user task force in this. 16:05:13 <Luc> ack pg 16:05:40 <dgarijo> paolo: is it realistic that we develop something to check compliance to the prov model? 16:05:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:05:54 <khalidbelhajjame> -q 16:05:56 <stain> could we have something similar to a validator? 16:05:57 <dgarijo> Luc: not our job to give certification of compliance. 16:06:00 <stain> it could check the constraints etc 16:06:08 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 16:07:06 <dgarijo> khalid: (too much noise) some ideas to check if a model is compliant? 16:07:28 <dgarijo> @khalid: can you summarize, please? I coulnd't hear you well. 16:08:13 <dgarijo> stian: check that something complies with a set of provenance assertions. It could be syntatic&semantic validation. 16:08:14 <khalidbelhajjame> I think it is not difficult to check the conformance to the model, but it is harder to check that the system use and use correctly the provenance 16:08:19 <Paolo> def need to go further than syntax validation 16:08:32 <dgarijo> @khalid: thanks! 16:08:40 <Luc> q? 16:08:52 <pgroth_> q+ 16:09:35 <dgarijo> pgroth: those who have proposals of what interoperability should be, raise discussions on the mailing list 16:09:46 <Luc> or keep on editing the wiki page ... 16:10:05 <pgroth_> q- 16:10:27 <dgarijo> Luc: action on Pgroth and Luc to engage the user task force. 16:10:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok 16:10:50 <Luc> q? 16:10:55 <dgarijo> Luc: please edit the wiki page if you have further proposals. 16:11:04 <Zakim> -pgroth_ 16:11:06 <Zakim> -??P38 16:11:07 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:11:07 <Luc> exit 16:11:09 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:11:09 <Luc> quit 16:11:10 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:11:12 <Zakim> -stain 16:11:58 <Zakim> -??P4 16:12:45 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov 16:12:54 <dgarijo> Hi luc 16:13:10 <Luc> hi daniel, thanks for scribing, i'll deal with it from now 16:13:10 <dgarijo> are you going to save the log? 16:13:18 <dgarijo> thanks 16:13:25 <dgarijo> see you ! 16:13:29 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:13:41 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:13:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:13:42 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:13:42 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 16:18:23 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov 16:25:27 <stain> trackbot, end telcon 16:25:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:25:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, pgroth_, stain, Curt_Tilmes, +1.509.375.aabb, SamCoppens, satya, JimMcCusker, [IPcaller], 16:25:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:25:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:25:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:25:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items 16:25:31 <Zakim> ... Yogesh_Simmhan # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000404