From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 16:18, 3 November 2011 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:50:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:50:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-prov-irc 14:50:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:50:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:50:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:50:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:50:05 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:50:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:50:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 14:50:06 <trackbot> Date: 03 November 2011 14:50:15 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.03 14:50:23 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:50:35 <Luc> Scribe: Graham Klyne 14:50:41 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:50:51 <Luc> Graham, everything should be set up for you 14:52:49 <GK> OK, thanks. 14:53:07 <Luc> thanks for volunteering 14:53:34 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:53:41 <Zakim> +??P36 14:53:53 <GK> zakim, ??p36 is me 14:53:53 <Zakim> +GK; got it 14:54:14 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:56:43 <Luc> Topic: Admin <luc> Summary: Last week's minutes were approved. 14:57:22 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:57:41 <Zakim> +Luc 14:57:57 <Zakim> +??P16 14:58:03 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:58:06 <Paolo> zakim. ??P16 is me 14:58:13 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 14:58:16 <Paolo> zakim,??P16 is me 14:58:16 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:58:25 <Zakim> +Yolanda 14:58:45 <Zakim> +tlebo 14:59:05 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:59:08 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan 14:59:10 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 14:59:33 <Luc> @sandro, did you see my message about not being able to create a poll? 15:00:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:00:33 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:00:33 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:00:39 <vinh> vinh has joined #prov 15:00:44 <Zakim> +??P27 15:00:47 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:00:59 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:59 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:01:01 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:01:01 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:01:19 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:01:29 <GK> Luc: intro - see agenda 15:01:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:01:40 <GK> ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.03 15:01:46 <Luc> Proposed: to accept minutes of last week's teleconference 15:01:54 <GK> ... no AOB for agenda 15:02:04 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see GK, Luc, Paolo, Yolanda, tlebo, Sandro, Yogesh_Simmhan, pgroth, ??P27, MacTed (muted), [IPcaller] 15:02:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, vinh, StephenCresswell, Yogesh, tlebo, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, GK, GK1, MacTed, trackbot, sandro, stain 15:02:10 <smiles> +1 15:02:14 <Yogesh> +1 15:02:17 <GK> 0 (not present) 15:02:17 <Paolo> (missed it) 15:02:24 <Paolo> 0 (not present) 15:03:04 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:03:08 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference 15:03:17 <Zakim> +??P5 15:03:19 <Luc> Topic: F2F2 and F2F3 <luc>Summary: Proposed dates for F2F2 are Jan 23-24 or Feb 2-3, in Amsterdam or Southampton; a poll is going to be set up shortly. Proposed dates for F2F3 are Jun 22-23 (Santa Barbara) or Boston (July 2 to 6). The objectives (and necessary inputs) for F2F2 were discussed and approved by the working group. 15:03:20 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:03:28 <jcheney> zakim, ??P5 is me 15:03:28 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:03:46 <Luc> January 23-24 15:03:52 <Luc> February 2-3 15:03:55 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- 2011-11-03 telecon agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.03 15:03:58 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:03:59 <GK> Luc: possible dates for F2F2 - 23, 24 Jan or 2-3 Feb 15:04:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:04:03 <Luc> Proposed locations: Amsterdam (preferably, since more options), Southampton 15:04:08 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:04:14 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 15:04:17 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:04:18 <GK> ... will set up a poll for expressing preference 15:04:31 <GK> ... locations Amsterdam or Southampton 15:04:45 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa 15:04:56 <GK> Luc: asks about permissions for setting up poll 15:05:02 <GK> Sandro: should have permissions nowq 15:05:12 <GK> s/nowq/now/ 15:05:16 <Luc> June 22-23 15:05:26 <Luc> June 22-23, santa barbara 15:05:39 <Luc> July 2 to 6, Boston 15:05:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:06:13 <Luc> q? 15:06:28 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2 15:06:37 <GK> Luc: Jun dates colocate with IPAW12 - http://www.ipaw.info/ipaw12/ 15:06:43 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter 15:06:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 15:06:56 <GK> Luc: Objectives for F2F2 meeting 15:07:18 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 15:07:18 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:07:21 <GK> ... charter indicates should be at last call for PROV-DM and PROV-O 15:07:40 <GK> ... but don't feel this is realistic for Jan/early Feb 15:08:02 <GK> ... But want to identify what remains to be done to release last calls. 15:08:35 <GK> ... For PAQ, also want to identify what needs to be done to go to last call. 15:08:44 <GK> ... as a NOTE, not REC-track 15:09:48 <GK> PROV-XML (deliverable 5) .. similarly want to identify what id needed. 15:10:36 <GK> Luc: Primer due after M12(?), so identifying roadmap at F2F is goal 15:10:54 <GK> ... similarly for best practice "cookbook" 15:11:08 <pgroth> +q 15:11:19 <GK> ... and call for implementations (?) 15:11:22 <Luc> q? 15:11:51 <GK> Luc: thus... 8 topics is a good fit for 8 sessions at F2F 15:12:08 <GK> ... inputs needed will be: 15:12:14 <GK> ... new version of PROV-DM 15:12:46 <GK> ... released version of PROV-O 15:13:17 <GK> ... second working draft of PAQ, including querying 15:13:29 <GK> ... first version of semantics 15:13:49 <GK> ... first version XML serialization, primer 15:14:04 <GK> ... outline of work plan for deliverable 6 (which is that?) 15:14:38 <GK> pgroth: have question about availability for next F2F in Europe 15:14:49 <smiles> +1 (at least for the Jan dates) 15:14:49 <MacTed> -1 15:14:53 <GK> +0.5 (depends on wife's state of health) 15:14:55 <Yogesh> -1 15:14:55 <Christine> Paul - I joined late. Could you repreat the dates please? 15:15:06 <zednik> -1 15:15:11 <satya> -1 15:15:16 <Paolo> Luc: possible dates for F2F2 - 23, 24 Jan or 2-3 Feb 15:15:16 <dgarijo> +1 ( I think) 15:15:21 <GK> s/(depends on wife's state of health)// 15:15:22 <Christine> +1 Feb 15:15:28 <Paolo> Proposed locations: Amsterdam (preferably, since more options), Southampton 15:15:31 <GK> (that probably shouldn't be minuted) 15:15:39 <Paolo> +1 (so far) 15:16:10 <Yogesh> Will not be able to travel to Europe...Can join by phone 15:16:15 <GK> Luc: those with -1 response: is it dates or location? 15:16:20 <GK> StephanZ: both 15:16:31 <GK> Satya: availability of dates 15:16:41 <Luc> q? 15:16:46 <pgroth> q- 15:17:13 <Luc> q? 15:17:17 <GK> Luc: feedback on objectives for next F2F, and inputs requested? 15:17:28 <smiles> q+ 15:17:42 <jcheney> q+ 15:17:56 <Luc> ack smiles 15:18:42 <GK> jcheney: semantics means ontology, or separate deliverable. If separate deliverable, am I the leader? Need to figure out goals for separate semantics document. 15:19:05 <GK> s/semantics means/does semantics mean/ 15:19:32 <Luc> q? 15:19:34 <GK> Luc: asks paul to put agendum in for next week about semantics document 15:19:35 <Luc> ack jch 15:19:54 <dgarijo> yes 15:19:54 <smiles> +1 15:19:55 <satya> +1 15:20:01 <dgarijo> (+1) 15:20:06 <GK> +1 15:20:09 <zednik> +1 15:20:13 <Luc> Proposed: to accept the objectives and inputs for F2F 15:20:16 <Luc> Proposed: to accept the objectives and inputs for F2F2 15:20:17 <Paolo> +1 15:20:28 <jcheney> +1 15:20:35 <Luc> Accepted: the objectives and inputs for F2F2 15:20:54 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O <luc>Summary: The prov-o document authors have agreed on an approach to model usage/generation time and qualifiers without a class EntityRole that is a subclass of Entity. They are in the process of modifying the ontology, the examples and the document. Final details such as name of properties are going to be discussed by them in a separate call. 15:21:04 <GK> (See http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2) 15:21:46 <GK> Satya: report from PROV-O teleconference... alignment of DM and ontology, and other progress 15:21:59 <GK> ... how to model entity roles. Two proposed approaches: 15:22:18 <GK> ... (1) specialize ?? (subproerty of (?) 15:22:33 <GK> ... (2) use a new class 15:23:12 <GK> ... given complexity of information being modelled. 15:23:44 <GK> ... felt creating n-ary class was more intuitive 15:24:08 <GK> ... explore option of allowing both approaches 15:24:42 <tlebo> my impression from the OWL telecon was that we included both techniques into PROV-O, so neither was excluded. 15:24:51 <GK> ... actions of Luc, Daniel to define appropriate properties for linking the n-ary classes to the appropriate entities 15:24:56 <GK> s.of/on/ 15:25:04 <dgarijo> me too! :D 15:25:20 <GK> Luc: wasn't present for action given to me... surprised! 15:25:30 <tlebo> (prov:used to point directly, versus prov:usedUsage points indirectly) 15:25:59 <GK> Satya: we felt you would be in better position as author of OPMO technique 15:26:16 <dgarijo> I thought we were going to use those names already. 15:26:35 <GK> Luc: feels that Tim, Stephan(?) are better placed to choose names. 15:26:50 <tlebo> +1, I can take a stab at the names. 15:26:56 <zednik> I agree with tim and daniel, keep prov:used and prov:hadUsage 15:27:01 <pgroth> +q 15:27:32 <pgroth> q- 15:27:40 <GK> Luc: propose use names from example discussed on Monday, then discuss 15:28:02 <zednik> +1 I am willing to help 15:28:03 <dgarijo> @zednik: I think he is referring to the: entityUsed (or usedCause) properties. 15:28:21 <Luc> q? 15:28:32 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-10-31#Meeting_Information 15:28:42 <GK> ACTION tlebo: propose names to use 15:28:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Propose names to use [on Timothy Lebo - due 2011-11-10]. 15:29:31 <dgarijo> sure 15:29:35 <dgarijo> I can help 15:29:51 <Luc> q? 15:30:13 <GK> Satya: in other sections... 15:30:15 <tlebo> Should we shoot to have the names by Monday noon? 15:30:21 <GK> ... improving readability 15:30:47 <GK> ... also keeping doc aligned with PROV-DM 15:31:02 <Luc> @tlebo, as soon as possible, yes 15:31:04 <GK> ... inference rules may change 15:31:19 <GK> ... hopefully in next couple of days 15:31:30 <GK> Luc: action 40 still in progress 15:32:00 <GK> ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/40 15:32:08 <GK> Satya: work in progress 15:32:11 <Luc> q? 15:32:20 <dgarijo> +q 15:32:44 <pgroth> +q 15:32:57 <GK> q+ to ask about taking on board Ivan's comments about complexity 15:33:34 <GK> Satya: would like to leave examples showing both approaches, 15:33:35 <tlebo> zeknik's proposal includes the "EntityInRole" approach, no? 15:33:40 <Luc> ack dga 15:33:54 <zednik> @tlebo no 15:33:55 <GK> ??: could be confusing, maybe put examples in another document? 15:34:10 <GK> Satya: will introduce new sections, keep issues separated 15:34:12 <Luc> ack pg 15:34:19 <dgarijo> @Graham: ?? is me 15:34:44 <tlebo> @zednik, s/prov:hadUsage/prov:qualifiedUse/ for the qualified version of prov:used ? 15:34:54 <dgarijo> @Paul: yes, I was wondering exactly about the same thing. If we release 2 approaches, interoperability is going to be an issue! 15:34:56 <GK> pgroth: I think we need to pick one: (1) for interoperability, (2) avoinding confusion, keeping things easy to explain 15:35:03 <tlebo> q+ 15:35:07 <tlebo> q- 15:35:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:35:21 <GK> ... two ways of modelling same thing shouldn't happen. 15:35:23 <smiles> @pgroth agreed 15:35:33 <dgarijo> @paul:+1 15:35:36 <tlebo> q+ to say that EntityInRole is part of the new design proposal (it includes it's more direct alternative, too). 15:36:08 <pgroth> +q 15:36:16 <dgarijo> @tlebo: no, entityInRole is the concept we decided to drop on monday. 15:36:33 <dgarijo> @tlebo: and replace it with Usage, Generation, Control. 15:36:58 <Paolo> +q 15:37:12 <GK> satya: commenting on modelling alternatives - given preferebnce for n-ary approach, don't see how this can be avoided. 15:37:23 <tlebo> we're just renaming the same design pattern, and including the ability to state it directly AND indirectly. 15:37:35 <GK> luc: I don't think either approach introduces more instances 15:38:02 <tlebo> +1 GK 15:38:15 <Paolo> @Satya: I tried to make it clear that my comment was not putting one approach against the other -- it was rather provocatively on the OWL/RDF mapping in general 15:38:17 <dgarijo> @tlebo: what we are doing is stoping EntityInRole from being a subclass of Entity. 15:38:22 <GK> luc: my objection was to introducing (classes) not in PROV-DM 15:38:42 <Paolo> +q 15:38:55 <pgroth> queue 15:39:12 <Luc> ack GK 15:39:12 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask about taking on board Ivan's comments about complexity 15:39:16 <GK> satya: can you show how extra nodes don't need to be added for OPMO 15:39:55 <GK> tim: don't see this as a contention, but new design that subsume's. Can use either direct or indirect approach 15:39:56 <Luc> ack tl 15:39:56 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that EntityInRole is part of the new design proposal (it includes it's more direct alternative, too). 15:40:55 <GK> pgroth: primer people are saying entityinrole is difficult to describe. We need one way to model. 15:41:04 <GK> ... would like to see this written down 15:41:38 <Luc> ack pg 15:42:20 <GK> satya: I am not clear about several issues relating to the alternative approach 15:42:40 <GK> pgroth: stephan and tim have clear idea about what needs to be done 15:42:49 <zednik> q+ 15:42:58 <Luc> ack pao 15:43:00 <dgarijo> +1 to ultimate approach 15:43:12 <GK> satya: will not have two approaches, just the alternative approach 15:43:25 <zednik> q- 15:43:41 <pgroth> but that's rdf :-) 15:43:51 <Luc> q? 15:43:52 <Paolo> The EntityInRole approach has 19 nodes, about as many properties, and 3 new OWL classes 15:44:32 <Luc> q? 15:45:02 <tlebo> (the new "Usage, Generation, Control" qualifications of prov:used are subclasses of EntityInRole, but we won't be saying naming EntityInRole or asserting the subclass axioms.) 15:45:15 <Luc> q? 15:45:16 <tlebo> s/saying// 15:45:18 <GK> paolo: node count shouldn't be used as argument for one approach over the other (?) 15:45:46 <GK> Luc: one approach or two? 15:46:08 <GK> Satya: one approach. New proposed approach, to be included when details are clear 15:46:33 <GK> Luc: when will PROV-O document be finalized? 15:46:36 <tlebo> regarding EntityInRole: we are just renaming it AND permitting "more direct" ways to state less qualified usages. 15:47:05 <GK> ... i.e. available for WG review 15:47:11 <zednik> @tlebo, but the semantics of Usage are different than the semantics of EntityInRole were 15:47:22 <dgarijo> @tim: but we are not just renaming it. EntityInRole is no longer a subclass of an Entity! 15:47:26 <GK> Satya: modelling changes will take time to work through 15:47:55 <GK> Satya: new editorial workover in a couple of days. Modelling changes will take longer. 15:48:32 <dgarijo> @tlebo: if not, then the issues with double usages and new entity creation for the uses are still there. 15:48:47 <tlebo> @dgarijo, I'm indifferent to whether EntityInRole is a subclass of Entity, it's fine to relax it. 15:49:26 <zednik> I think there is less agreement than was earlier assumed 15:49:34 <Luc> q? 15:49:37 <GK> Luc: worried that rest of author team doesn't seem to agree with new approach 15:49:43 <jcheney> +q 15:50:29 <GK> Satya: can we have another separate call today or tomorrow to work this out. 15:50:42 <tlebo> q+ to say we aren't disagreeing too much. 15:50:49 <GK> Luc: we need you to reach a decision and give the rest of us something to review 15:51:03 <Luc> q? 15:51:25 <GK> Satya: will need some time to come up with missing parts not in OPMO/OWL 15:51:28 <dgarijo> @telbo: you are saying that EntityInRole being a subclass on an Entity is indiferent. It changes everything. 15:51:29 <Luc> ack jc 15:52:14 <GK> jc: idea was raised as a thought experiment 15:52:17 <tlebo> @dgarigo, stop scaring @luc :-) 15:52:41 <tlebo> s/go/jo/ 15:53:06 <GK> ... subgroup doesn't necessarily agree, but if we can forge consensus that one approach is good enough to put out for review and comment, this would be a way forward 15:53:21 <dgarijo> @tlebo: ok, but I just thought we had an agreement after the other day's telecon. I'm ok about having a telecon afterwards though. 15:53:38 <Luc> q? 15:53:43 <GK> tlebo: not so much disagreeing, just ... converging on new direction? 15:54:10 <tlebo> apologies for making it look like we are disagreeing. 15:54:11 <GK> Luc: team will continue work on document, make it available to WG ASAP 15:54:12 <Luc> ack tl 15:54:12 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say we aren't disagreeing too much. #15:54:27 <Luc> topic: paq document 15:54:29 <GK> Topic: PAQ document <luc>Summary: the editors are planning to have a version ready for internal review next week. 15:55:35 <GK> pgroth: about same as couple of weeks ago. Have been waiting on things to settle in data model. Also in ontology - as these affect queries and handling of context 15:55:57 <GK> ... expecting it will take about a week to bring this up to date 15:56:00 <GK> ... TODO 15:56:05 <GK> ... context URIs and entities 15:56:20 <GK> ... provenance services 15:56:29 <tlebo> (It's been a while since I've dug through OPMO - where's the best summary?) 15:56:35 <GK> ... incremental updates 15:56:41 <GK> ... editorial 15:56:48 <satya> @Tim: http://openprovenance.org/model/opmo 15:57:28 <Luc> q? 15:57:34 <GK> ... w.r.t. incremental updates: How to get provenance information incrementally? Explaining fow to deal with large amounts of provenance? 15:58:28 <tlebo> @satya thanks! 15:58:31 <GK> Luc: do you mean this will be ready by next week? 15:58:50 <GK> Paul: I think we can manage that 15:58:57 <Luc> q? #15:59:05 <Luc> Topic: PROV-DM 15:59:11 <GK> ACTION Pau: drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week 15:59:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Pau 15:59:27 <GK> ACTION pgroth: drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week 15:59:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2011-11-10]. 15:59:50 <GK> Topic: PROV-DM <luc> Summary: The WG recorded three proposals that were approved by email vote during the week. A revision of the document incorporating the recent proposals (and further to be voted on) is going to be produced by the editors. 15:59:51 <Luc> Accepted: Rename 'Entity Expression' into 'Entity Record'; similarly, rename 'XXX Expression' into 'XXX Record'. 16:00:43 <Luc> Accepted: Attributes are a necessary part of prov-dm. Attribute-value pairs can be optionally included in Entity Expressions and Activity Expressions. 16:00:57 <dgarijo> The definition from the incubator: Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and processes involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing that resource. Provenance provides a critical foundation for assessing authenticity, enabling trust, and allowing reproducibility. 16:01:32 <GK> Luc: Proposal on attributes - attributes are useful for interop with other provenance representations 16:02:09 <GK> ... questions about constraints associated with attributes; propose to remove these from the data model 16:02:34 <GK> ... we may revisit entity constraints in context of semantics 16:02:39 <Luc> Accepted: Constraints related to attributes will be dropped: (derivation-attributes, use-attributes, generation-affects-attributes) 16:03:28 <Zakim> +??P17 16:03:40 <Luc> q? 16:03:46 <GK> Luc: second proposal: will not enter into detail of what attributes are "characterizing" 16:04:06 <Luc> q? 16:04:17 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 16:04:19 <GK> ... will start of document rev with all accepted proposals 16:04:24 <GK> s/of/on/ 16:04:30 <pgroth> q? 16:04:46 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 16:04:48 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan 16:04:50 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:04:50 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:04:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:04:52 <GK> End of meeting. 16:04:53 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:04:55 <Zakim> -??P17 16:04:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 16:04:57 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:04:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:05:02 <Zakim> -Sandro 16:05:08 <Zakim> -Luc 16:05:19 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaaa 16:05:29 <Zakim> -??P27 16:05:41 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:05:41 <Zakim> -GK 16:06:06 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:06:10 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:06:16 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000350