From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 10:02, 27 January 2012 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:59:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:59:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-irc 15:59:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:59:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:59:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 15:59:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:59:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:59:58 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2012 16:00:02 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 16:00:07 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 16:00:22 <Curt> scribe: Curt 16:00:23 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.25 16:00:43 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 16:00:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 16:01:30 <Mike> Mike has joined #prov 16:01:44 <Curt> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Paolo Missier, Khalid Belhajjame, Daniel Garijo 16:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aaaa 16:01:58 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 16:02:03 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 16:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.646.389.aabb 16:02:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 16:02:13 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 16:02:15 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:02:21 <Zakim> +tlebo 16:02:29 <Zakim> +??P51 16:02:37 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc 16:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 16:03:08 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 16:03:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P54 16:03:39 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 16:03:54 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here? 16:04:08 <davidschaengold> davidschaengold has joined #prov 16:04:16 <Zakim> +??P60 16:04:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60 16:04:30 <jcheney> zakim, ??P60 is me 16:04:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60 16:04:55 <davidschaengold> Zakim, aabb is me 16:04:57 <kai> kai has joined #prov 16:04:59 <satya> satya has joined #prov <pgroth>Topic: Admin <pgroth> Summary: Minutes of Jan 19 2012 telcon accepted. Satya agreed to respond to open issues but will do so later. He said that it these issues should not hinder release of prov-dm as third public working draft. 16:05:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-19 16:05:45 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 16:05:52 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon 16:05:54 <satya> +1 16:05:57 <davidschaengold> +1 16:05:58 <Curt> 0 (not present) 16:06:13 <Christine> 0 (not present) 16:06:13 <kai> 0 (not present) 16:06:15 <smiles> +1 16:06:16 <jcheney> +1 16:06:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see davidschaengold, jcheney, smiles, Christine, Mike, Zakim, RRSAgent, zednik, pgroth, GK_, Curt, Luc, MacTed, mdmdm, stain, trackbot, sandro 16:06:24 <Zakim> +davidschaengold; got it 16:06:32 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 16:06:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:07:02 <Zakim> +??P73 16:07:05 <pgroth> Accepted: minutes Jan 19 telecon 16:07:15 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov 16:07:26 <kai> Zakim, ??P73 is me. 16:07:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :) 16:07:58 <Zakim> +kai; got it 16:08:27 <Curt> pgroth: actions: satya reviewing issues 16:08:50 <Curt> satya: will try to respond to each on list, but time is short, progress on many of them 16:09:13 <Curt> ... many already addressed, satya just needs to review and make proper recommendations 16:09:18 <pgroth> q? 16:09:30 <pgroth> Topic: F2F prep document updates <pgroth> Summary: Brief update on each of the documents before the F2F. All were in reasonable shape for discussion at the F2F. There was a discussion about annotations in the prov-o and the impact on prov-primer. Simon Miles is to discuss the issue with the prov-o team. 16:09:48 <Curt> pgroth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F 16:10:04 <Curt> ... prov-primer 16:11:15 <satya> q+ 16:11:27 <Curt> working out updates needed, not changed since last editors version 16:11:58 <Curt> satya: rdfs already provides way to do annotations, not currently modeled like that 16:12:29 <pgroth> ack satya 16:13:11 <Curt> satya: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer, 16:13:28 <Curt> pgroth: prov-aq 16:14:03 <Curt> ...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after 16:14:04 <pgroth> q? 16:14:11 <Curt> ... in good shape for F2F 16:14:19 <Curt> pgroth: prov-dm 16:14:29 <Curt> luc: third working draft to release today for F2F 16:14:36 <pgroth> q? 16:14:40 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o 16:15:23 <Curt> many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss 16:15:24 <Luc> q+ 16:15:28 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:15:33 <Curt> current version has edits 16:15:55 <Curt> luc: no update for precise/imprecise derivations 16:16:08 <Curt> satya: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined 16:16:29 <Curt> luc: some decisions made 16:16:53 <pgroth> q? 16:16:57 <Curt> satya: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion 16:17:02 <Curt> pgroth: prov-sem 16:17:32 <Curt> jcheney: not much changed recently, watching prov-o domain of discourse discussion, which may have an impact 16:17:44 <Curt> jcheney: waiting for final determination to incorporate 16:17:56 <Curt> jcheney: a few more things to flesh out that will happen prior to F2F 16:18:14 <Curt> pgroth: most documents in reasonable sync. given work that has been done 16:18:37 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft <pgroth> Summary: Prov-dm was approved to be released as a third public working draft. Editors clarified that the issue of identifiers and accounts will be addressed in the fourth working draft. 16:19:22 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-second-public-working-draft 16:20:30 <Curt> luc: work on complement, specialization, examples, derivation, collections, restructuring, new section 7 with constraints on data model 16:20:53 <Curt> ... ... agent and hadPlan 16:21:11 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft 16:21:19 <smiles> +1 16:21:24 <satya> q+ 16:21:24 <jcheney> +1 16:21:25 <MacTed> +1 16:21:28 <Curt> +1 16:21:32 <kai> +1 16:21:53 <Curt> satya: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers? 16:22:05 <pgroth> ack satya 16:22:30 <Curt> luc: no, those aren't incorporated yet, those will go into the 4th WD, identifiers and accounts 16:23:12 <Curt> ... too many changes to incorporate, still determining final agreement on identifiers/accounts, may take a while 16:23:37 <satya> +1 16:23:38 <pgroth> q? 16:23:40 <Curt> satya: yes, those may have broad impact 16:24:03 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft 16:24:21 <satya> q+ 16:24:48 <Curt> satya: good to freeze changes at a defined point and release a good draft 16:25:01 <Curt> ... we should follow that model for prov-o 16:25:07 <pgroth> ack satya 16:25:13 <Curt> pgroth: required by W3C to release each 3 months 16:25:21 <Curt> luc: good to have well-defined goals for each release 16:25:31 <pgroth> Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm <pgroth> Summary: Continued discussion of identifiers in prov-dm. The key goal was to provide guidance to the editors in creating proposals. It was agreed that Entities, Activities and Events should be considered part of of the universe of discourse. There was agreement that association should be part of the universe of discourse as well. There was still debate about Derivation and other relations due to the question of whether these releations are descriptions of activities or entities or whether describe something else. A long discussion around whether provenance record should be part of the universe of discourse was held. A key question that came up was how the provenance of provenance would be supported. There was consensus that provenance of provenance should be supported. There was some idea that one should be able to "put" a provenance record into the universe of discourse but that provenance records were not automatically part of it. The issue remains open. 16:25:40 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/UniverseOfDiscourse 16:26:06 <Luc> I hope I included all the votes (I just added James') 16:26:06 <pgroth> *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all 16:26:07 <pgroth> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and 16:26:07 <pgroth> otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an 16:26:07 <pgroth> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects 16:26:07 <pgroth> described." (intent) 16:27:07 <pgroth> q? 16:27:18 <Curt> pgroth: a series of items were considered to determine what should be part of the universe of discourse 16:27:28 <pgroth> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. 16:27:48 <Luc> all votes were positive 16:28:34 <MacTed> I have failed to keep up with the list this week, and see argument with several of these proposals... 16:28:43 <Curt> (many who voted are not present) 16:28:57 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:28:57 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 16:29:08 <Curt> luc/pgroth: record previous vote for minutes rather than re-voting here 16:29:42 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 1. Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. 16:30:01 <pgroth> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, 16:30:01 <pgroth> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of 16:30:02 <pgroth> discourse 16:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: 16:30:27 <MacTed> I accept Proposals 1-4, and have concerns or issues with 5-9 16:30:32 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of discourse 16:30:48 <satya> q+ 16:31:21 <satya> q- 16:31:24 <pgroth> ack satay 16:31:33 <Curt> satya: with respect to prov-o, those were included 16:31:37 <Luc> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains, Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation, Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After removal belong to the universe of discourse. 16:32:11 <Curt> luc: Stian voted -1 (for all but associations) 16:32:36 <Curt> ... not sure of his rationale 16:33:35 <Curt> tim: laundry list is long, a concern to determine how each should be modeled in prov-o 16:34:06 <Curt> luc: satya suppoted derivation, association and activity ordering, do you support those? 16:34:07 <Curt> tim: yes 16:34:31 <pgroth> q? 16:34:43 <Curt> luc: why doesn't stian think association should not be part of universe of discourse? 16:34:57 <Curt> pgroth: possibly rephrase proposal 3 and re-vote? 16:35:17 <Curt> luc: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those 16:35:17 <Luc> Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the unvierse of discourse 16:35:44 <Curt> luc: we'll discuss with stian further and rephrase rest of proposal 3 16:36:17 <Curt> tim: accepts association 16:36:26 <pgroth> q? 16:36:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse 16:36:40 <pgroth> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of 16:36:40 <pgroth> discourse 16:37:13 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:37:20 <Curt> pgroth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now 16:37:20 <pgroth> q? 16:37:33 <Luc> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record. 16:38:02 <pgroth> q? 16:38:09 <Curt> pgroth: satya and macted disagree 16:38:44 <Curt> satya: we need a construct to aggregate prov. assertions, if we remove records/accounts, we won't have a good way to do that 16:39:21 <Curt> macted: is this to differentiate data/metadata in a given context? 16:39:23 <Luc> q+ 16:39:27 <pgroth> q? 16:39:45 <Curt> ... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata 16:39:58 <zednik> q+ 16:39:58 <Curt> luc: we're trying to establish that 16:40:07 <Curt> macted: we need to make that distinction 16:40:23 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:40:41 <Curt> luc: we are talking about different levels, the world where things happen; level 2 descriptions of what happened in the world 16:40:54 <Curt> ... account records are at that second level 16:41:05 <Curt> ... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance 16:41:31 <Curt> macted: that isn't clear in these proposals 16:41:38 <Curt> luc: we're trying to represent that intent 16:42:10 <Curt> macted: things/entities are interchangeable, the proposals aren't clear 16:42:34 <Curt> luc: we're trying to determine how to represent our intent into the documents 16:42:46 <Curt> macted: difficult with text alone 16:42:47 <jcheney> See also ISSUE-212 16:42:52 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:42:56 <Curt> luc: yes, more graphics would help explain the concepts 16:43:26 <Curt> zednik: yes, confusing, perhaps graphics or ASN could help explain this better, esp. things like prov. of prov. 16:43:26 <Luc> q+ 16:43:29 <jcheney> Is prov of prov on the critical path? I agree it's important but perhaps we should table it until one-layer prov is stable 16:43:32 <pgroth> ack zednik 16:43:42 <satya> q+ 16:43:44 <Curt> pgroth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group 16:44:22 <pgroth> q? 16:44:25 <Curt> macted: this is a perpetual problem in graphs, the recursion. These levels can be better described graphically 16:44:36 <Curt> luc: we haven't determined how to express prov. of prov. yet 16:45:09 <zednik> @jcheney from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Broad_Recommendations "Recommendation # 4: A provenance framework should include a standard way to express the provenance of provenance assertions, as there can be several accounts of provenance and with different granularity and that may possibly conflict" 16:45:21 <Curt> ... for some account records aren't part of discourse, but if you do want to talk about them, then you will have to identify them 16:45:34 <satya> q- 16:45:38 <zednik> q+ 16:45:40 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:45:44 <Curt> ... do we want to have prov. of prov.? is that part of the scope we should cover? 16:45:47 <pgroth> ack zednik 16:46:06 <Curt> zednik: we don't want to preclude describing prov. of prov. 16:46:47 <Curt> luc: the term 'thing' -- if we use an account record, we need to make the 'thing' an entity so we can describe it 16:47:06 <Curt> ... looking for guidelines/recommendations of where we are going with this 16:47:12 <pgroth> q? 16:47:41 <Curt> pgroth: if we remove notion of account record from proposal 5, would that be in line with our thinking? 16:47:47 <tlebo> +1 luc: the way to talk about things is by introducing entities. (we get provenance of provenance by making entities about the records - we effectively have shifted the two levels.) 16:47:57 <stephenc> We have a use case for provenance-of-provenance on legislation 16:47:58 <pgroth> q? 16:48:10 <pgroth> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse 16:48:35 <pgroth> q? 16:49:07 <Curt> macted: this is the recursion problem. prov. of a thing is itself a thing (an entity) when asserting provenance about it 16:49:19 <satya> q+ 16:49:20 <Curt> macted: difficult to express without a picture 16:49:35 <Curt> luc: we need more guidance to even draw the picture 16:49:50 <tlebo> +1 (if i want to talk about Records, I make an entity about it) 16:50:02 <pgroth> i agree with you tlebo 16:50:05 <Curt> ... if all records have an identity, that is a different direction that if records are not part of the universe of discourse 16:50:33 <pgroth> q? 16:50:40 <Curt> macted: example - i have a table, built 1727, joe smith, sold on jan 19, 1728, sold again, again, again 16:50:50 <Curt> ... we track that journey through the world -- the provenance 16:50:58 <Curt> ... the records of that provenance are a distinct entity 16:51:11 <Curt> ... the provenance of the provenance are that I said it was built in 1727 16:51:22 <Curt> ... that shift the perspective up a level 16:51:30 <kai> +1 for provenance on provenance. 16:51:42 <Curt> ... one level talks about the table, one about the provenance, one about the provenance of the records of the provenance. 16:51:45 <kai> That's metadata provenance 16:51:59 <tlebo> (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift) 16:52:03 <Curt> macted: this can be difficult to follow 16:52:25 <tlebo> @macted, good example 16:52:35 <Curt> pgroth: that use case is clear, but how do we best communicate that? what construct should prov-dm have? 16:52:56 <Curt> macted: use a concrete example to figure that out, rather than trying to solve in the abstract 16:53:14 <Curt> ... have to look at both sides to make sure it all works 16:53:24 <pgroth> q 16:53:24 <Curt> ... doing the abstract first makes this harder 16:53:26 <pgroth> q? 16:53:32 <pgroth> ack satya 16:53:49 <zednik> +1 to use concrete example before decidiing on abstract model restrictions 16:53:52 <Curt> satya: the way to talk about things is to introduce entities 16:54:13 <Curt> ... when we want to talk about prov-of-prov, we need to have a universal construct for that 16:54:38 <pgroth> q? 16:54:41 <Curt> ... we have been discussing this notion already. records should be part of the universe of discourse 16:54:49 <jcheney> q+ 16:55:00 <pgroth> ack jcheney 16:55:10 <tlebo> @satya, did you say that you need Account Records AND Accounts in UOD? 16:55:25 <Curt> jcheney: I said I agree there is a difference between saying all records are part of the UofD, or if some could be 16:55:44 <Curt> ... some ambiguity. Some entities might contain information about provenance records contained elsewhere 16:55:53 <Curt> ... in order to express prov-of-prov 16:56:04 <kai> q+ 16:56:41 <Curt> ... this isn't something we have to decide now to make progress, could we say "by default records aren't necessarily identified entities in the UofD, but they might be" 16:56:42 <pgroth> q? 16:57:07 <tlebo> +1 james: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them (this shifts the perspective) 16:57:29 <Curt> kai: we have a similar problem in dublin core, we can describe everything, but then we have to describe the description 16:57:29 <Zakim> -??P51 16:58:06 <tlebo> +1 "it's nothing special'! 16:58:07 <Curt> ... we need to be able to describe prov-of-prov, need to consider the prov itself as an entity. 16:58:17 <Curt> ... if we do that, then we don't have a problem 16:58:46 <Curt> ... keep it simple, just say that prov. itself can be an entity, then you can describe it just like you describe the prov. of any entity 16:58:48 <tlebo> +1 keep it simple (knowing that it can be shifted) 16:58:48 <pgroth> q? 16:58:51 <pgroth> ack kai 16:58:53 <Curt> ... simply handles the recursion 16:59:12 <pgroth> by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them 16:59:33 <smiles> +1 16:59:47 <tlebo> records are only a means of transmission. We only care about the content of the transmission. 16:59:50 <Curt> pgroth: trying to capture this -- james' proposal allows us to shift perspective, is that ok? is that sufficient guidance for luc? 16:59:53 <MacTed> see SKOS - containers of entities, which are containers of entities, which are containers... 17:00:03 <Curt> luc: yes, that and the emails 17:00:16 <Zakim> -??P54 17:00:24 <tlebo> I'm at the top of the hour 17:00:26 <jcheney> OK with me (that's actually tlebo's wording, but I like it) 17:00:27 <MacTed> er, sorry, SIOC not SKOS 17:00:28 <kai> Don't make the mistake that in the end you can describe the provenance of everything, the only exception would be the provenance (records). 17:00:40 <Zakim> -MacTed 17:00:51 <Curt> pgroth: next few proposals need even more discussion 17:01:27 <pgroth> Proposal: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them 17:01:38 <tlebo> +1 17:01:42 <jcheney> +1 17:01:44 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #prov 17:02:03 <Curt> satya: what does "by default" mean? 17:02:10 <tlebo> "the current layers of the shift" 17:02:31 <Curt> pgroth: when you describe provenance, you use things like entities, derivations, etc. not records 17:02:38 <jcheney> I think it means that you can't infer that a record is in the domain of discourse. You have to assert it. 17:02:40 <Zakim> -davidschaengold 17:02:56 <Curt> ... but if you want to describe prov-of-prov, you would (in some fashion) make the records into entities and use those 17:03:31 <satya> 0 17:03:35 <tlebo> If we argue for a third layer, we are not being compact and eloquent. And we could argue for the fourth, and fifth. It won't end. 17:03:35 <Curt> satya: decision not critical to move on 17:03:46 <Curt> pgroth: this is important for modeling 17:03:54 <pgroth> q 17:03:56 <pgroth> q? 17:04:05 <jcheney> @satya: There is a difference between saying records "MAY" be in hte domain of discourse and records MUST be in the domain of discourse. 17:04:05 <kai> -1 17:04:10 <Luc> @tlebo: i dont think we would introudce more layers, but a "shift operator" 17:04:32 <Curt> kai: I can describe the provenance of data, not just things 17:04:54 <Curt> kai: provenance of data is itself data, so we can describe it the same way 17:05:11 <tlebo> @ speaker, because we already have what we need to discuss provenance (Entities) 17:05:25 <zednik> -1 (show concrete example before making modeling decision, not other way around) 17:05:29 <Curt> pgroth: we have "provenance records". last week we said things in the UofD are identified 17:05:53 <Curt> ... if we say records are part of the UofD, then we have to give them identifiers -- that affects the modeling 17:06:04 <Curt> kai: what is the problem giving them an identifier? 17:06:16 <Curt> pgroth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers 17:06:32 <pgroth> entity(w3c.org) 17:06:55 <tlebo> (apologies) 17:06:59 <Curt> pgroth: is that in our UofD? 17:07:00 <Zakim> -tlebo 17:07:26 <satya> Sorry, I have to leave. 17:07:34 <Curt> kai: I can only describe identifiable things, so if we want to describe them, we have to identify them 17:07:57 <Curt> ... just a collection of statements might not have an identifier, so we'll have to identify them if we want to describe them 17:07:58 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ??? 17:08:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 17:08:25 <Curt> pgroth: some agreement, but try different wording 17:08:27 <pgroth> records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse 17:08:30 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ??? 17:08:52 <jcheney> is that at least clearer than "by default"? 17:09:11 <Curt> kai: I think records are in the UofD, but only if they have an identity 17:09:42 <Curt> kai: "every record that has its own identity is in the UofD" 17:10:06 <Curt> luc: we were using accounts to handle this, not every single record 17:10:25 <Curt> ... we weren't going to have provenance of other records 17:11:01 <Curt> ... if we revisit this, we need to change more of the data model. we were previously only using accounts as a way to describe prov-of-prov 17:11:13 <Curt> ... are we questioning those decisions made 6 months ago? 17:11:39 <jcheney> It may not have been clear to everyone whether "records" included or excluded accounts in this discussion (it wasn't to me) 17:11:42 <Curt> ... the latest draft still says the only way to describe provenance itself is through accounts 17:12:07 <Curt> kai: something that has a URI, an identity, is something that exists. why restrict how you can describe that thing? 17:12:34 <Curt> luc: we aren't considering resources in general, just the way we model those things in prov-dm 17:12:46 <MacTed> SIOC Ontology -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/ -- may save us reinventing many wheels.... 17:12:57 <Curt> luc: are we making provenance records part of the UofD. Can we represent prov. of accounts? 17:13:11 <MacTed> of particular use -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-overview 17:13:28 <Curt> ... are account records part of the UofD? 17:13:42 <Curt> kai: Is there a problem if that are not in the UofD? 17:14:24 <Curt> luc: we are breaking early design decisions. saying they are part of UofD, we say that all records have to have identifiers 17:14:43 <Curt> ... implications is every prov. record would have to have a named graph to give the set an identifier 17:15:02 <Curt> ... this is a radical departure to current work 17:15:08 <Curt> ^to^from 17:15:25 <Curt> luc: we need guidance on this 17:15:37 <Curt> kai: we can discuss at F2F 17:15:50 <Curt> ... we don't want to destroy current work 17:16:04 <Curt> ... we should be able to figure out something that works next week 17:16:34 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aaaa 17:16:50 <Curt> pgroth: kai isn't saying we have to have identifiers for everything, we don't have to have mint identifiers for every prov. record 17:17:03 <Curt> ... we can use that as preliminary guidance 17:17:33 <Curt> kai: yes, that is what I think, they CAN have an identifier, with that you can describe the records' provenance 17:17:43 <jcheney> That sounds like what I was trying to say. 17:17:47 <Curt> ... we should indicate that it is possible to describe prov-of-prov 17:18:02 <jcheney> Might be good to give a small meta-prov example like MacTed's in PROV-DM? 17:18:12 <Curt> kai: we are mostly in agreement -- just need to detail 17:18:13 <pgroth> q? 17:18:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 17:18:30 <Zakim> -jcheney 17:18:32 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc 17:18:33 <Zakim> -Luc 17:18:35 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 17:18:40 <Zakim> -kai 17:18:55 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 17:19:01 <pgroth> curt 17:19:04 <pgroth> I'll take care of it 17:19:06 <Curt> ok 17:19:07 <Curt> bye 17:19:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 17:19:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 17:19:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html pgroth 17:19:46 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 17:19:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 17:19:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, tlebo, +1.518.633.aacc, MacTed, jcheney, davidschaengold, Satya_Sahoo, kai 17:19:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:19:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:19:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 17:19:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000373