Chatlog 2012-03-08

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

15:56:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:56:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-irc
15:56:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:56:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:56:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:56:52 <trackbot> Date: 08 March 2012
15:56:53 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:56:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:56:56 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:57:05 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08
15:57:11 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:57:25 <Mike> Mike has joined #prov
15:57:27 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:57:33 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:51 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaaa
15:58:16 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:58:31 <paolo> paolo has joined #prov
15:59:33 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:00:13 <Zakim> +??P9
16:00:34 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:00:40 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:00:52 <Zakim> +??P26
16:01:07 <GK> Zakim, ??p26 is me
16:01:07 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:01:13 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:22 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:31 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb
16:01:31 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:01:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:02:00 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:02:07 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:02:20 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:26 <Zakim> +sandro
16:02:54 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:03:18 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
16:03:19 <pgroth> topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Normal admin issues and reminded the working group of the time change for Europe for the next two weeks.
16:03:29 <pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
16:03:42 <Curt> +1
16:03:43 <paolo> +1
16:03:44 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:48 <Mike> +1
16:03:49 <tlebo> +1
16:03:50 <GK> +1
16:03:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:04:10 <Zakim> +??P27
16:04:17 <satya> +1
16:04:22 <jun> zakim, ??P27 is me
16:04:22 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:04:39 <pgroth> Accepted Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
16:04:46 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:04:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun
16:04:56 <pgroth>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:05:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:05:36 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:05:42 <Zakim> +??P34
16:05:50 <jcheney> zakim, ??p34 is me
16:05:50 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:05:53 <paolo> k action can be closed
16:06:06 <GK> @paul I guess we'll talk about updating PROV-AQ - I've been focusing my limited efforts this week on reviewing DM updates
16:06:13 <paolo> daniel's action can be closed
16:06:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:06:39 <christine> christine has joined #prov
16:06:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:06:55 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:07:28 <pgroth> topic: F2F3
<pgroth> Summary: The chairs proposed to colocate the next F2F meeting with IPAW. A poll was set-up to agree on times. The working group was encouraged to provide a response by next early next week. 
16:07:29 <GK> Mar !!????  I have Mar 15 and 22
16:08:09 <pgroth> Please fill poll https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f3/
16:08:14 <pgroth> June 22 - 23
16:08:16 <paolo> pgroth:  co-locate with IPAW. should be in US anyways
16:08:26 <Zakim> +??P14
16:08:53 <pgroth> q?
16:09:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:09:03 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:09:08 <pgroth> q?
16:09:16 <pgroth> topic: Prov-o
<pgroth> Summary: Update on the prov-o ontology. Progress has been made on the html structure and automating the creating of it from the ontology. Much work has been done on revising the ontology and preparing for easier mapping between prov-o and prov-dm.
16:09:20 <GK> That meeting date is Friday and saturday, right?
16:09:24 <pgroth> yes
16:09:24 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08#PROV-O
16:09:44 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:09:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller.a], jcheney, [IPcaller.aa], dgarijo
16:09:48 <dgarijo> Sorry to be late. Yes, I've finished my aciton, along with Tim and Mike.
16:09:51 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P21 is me
16:09:51 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
16:09:59 <paolo> tlebo: owl: processing issues, created new product just for HTML in the tracker
16:10:28 <paolo> tlebo: changes occurred to OWL onto over the week. free to review
16:10:43 <paolo> tlebo: changes to OWL have corresp. changes to the RDF pages
16:10:59 <paolo> tlebo: new comparisons to the coverage overview page available
16:11:23 <paolo> tlebo: HTML side: new product in tracker. Jun + Khalid presented a proposal for new doc structure
16:11:35 <pgroth> q?
16:11:38 <paolo> tlebo: well received during the monday call. 
16:11:54 <paolo> tlebo: journalism example shown, sketch of diagram
16:12:15 <paolo> tlebo: onto visualization tool to help Khalid and Jun (Daniel?)
16:12:28 <paolo> tlebo:  new page creation mechanism available
16:12:39 <paolo> tlebo: getting ready to review next iteration
16:12:53 <pgroth> q?
16:12:55 <paolo> tlebo: will then assign specific sections of the doc
16:13:11 <Luc> q+ to ask about html generation tool
16:13:17 <paolo> pgroth: plan for deciding which automated gen tool to use?
16:13:23 <pgroth> q?
16:13:26 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
16:13:29 <paolo> tlebo: will emerge from discussion of next iteration
16:13:38 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:13:39 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to ask about html generation tool
16:13:45 <dgarijo> I think that LODE was the most successful
16:14:19 <paolo> Luc: how about printing requirement
16:14:20 <pgroth> q+ to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:14:28 <paolo> tlebo: will be taken into account
16:14:38 <GK> (Doesn't mean one can't also have a browsable form :)
16:15:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:15:00 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:15:10 <dgarijo> You can browse the different tools at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Generating_HTML_documentation_of_OWL#PROV-O_Views_in_the_previous_tools
16:15:15 <paolo> pgroth: SW coord meeting says any format we use must be compatible with the W3C prescribed style guide
16:15:26 <pgroth> q?
16:15:33 <paolo> tlebo: ok so far, on the todo list for the future
16:16:15 <paolo> tlebo: simplification & alignment:  propose to flatten part of the Involvement hierarchy
16:16:45 <paolo> tlebo: proposal sent out on Tue. Khalid responded. Will be implemented shortly
16:16:50 <pgroth> q?
16:16:58 <dgarijo> I don't object as long as we have the hierarchy on the properties.
16:17:26 <paolo> pgroth: date for automated version?
16:17:43 <paolo> tlebo: aggregation of all threads under review by Monday
16:17:44 <pgroth> q?
16:17:58 <dgarijo> @tlebo: if you need some additional help, please tell me.
16:18:11 <pgroth> q?
16:18:17 <paolo> tlebo: results on next iteration to be available by Tue or Wed
16:18:22 <pgroth> topic: prov-dm
<pgroth> Summary: Editors addressed most comments from the review of WD4 all remaining comments are noted in the document. It was agreed to include a revised version of derivation in WD4. The group also agreed to change the name of PROV-ASN to PROV-N. With these changes included, it was agreed to freeze WD4 as an internal release. A discussion around the new version of derivation was held. 
16:18:33 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/274
16:19:10 <paolo> Luc: all comments grouped last week (Luc and Paolo)  as ISSUE-274
16:19:23 <paolo> Luc: most resolved, rest noted in the current doc
16:19:50 <paolo> Luc: WD4 work to be frozen so that next set of tech issues can be tackled
16:19:55 <Zakim> +??P64
16:20:16 <paolo> Luc: important for PROV-o and other "serialisers" to have a frozen PROV-DM
16:20:25 <Luc> q?
16:20:25 <paolo> Luc: feedback solicited
16:20:31 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:21:05 <GK> I reviewed DM4 today (up to about middle of section 4); much improved over previous but still some issues - happy to see these considered for DM5.
16:21:19 <GK> (Just sent comments to list)
16:21:21 <paolo> Luc: no response from Tim, but know he's been looking into WD4 for PROV-O. ok to move on?
16:21:41 <pgroth> q?
16:21:45 <paolo> tlebo: sec. II and III missed so far, but will go with group's decision to Freeze
16:22:32 <pgroth> q?
16:22:33 <paolo> GK: current comments sent to list supersede previous ones
16:22:35 <pgroth> q+
16:23:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:23:28 <paolo> pgroth: happy to freeze, but does that entail updating the RDF if any signatures have changed? 
16:24:37 <paolo> tlebo: discrepancies are automatically detected -- thanks to changes in the PROV-DM markup
16:25:04 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
16:25:39 <paolo> Luc: WD4 text on derivation is still the same as WD3. but needs simplification. Link above is a proposal
16:25:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:26:16 <paolo> Luc: reviewed by Simon and others. Recent comments from GK and Curt taken into account
16:26:19 <GK> New text is big improvement.  I still have some issues with content but happy to see new text as basis of ongoing comments.
16:26:50 <paolo> Luc: seeking WG approval to incorporate into the editor's draft. and should it go into WD4 or WD5
16:26:51 <pgroth> q?
16:27:02 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
16:27:22 <paolo> GK: still some issues, but big improvement. can go forward for discussion
16:27:32 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov
16:28:20 <paolo> Curt: agree that changes look good. some workflows may have requirements that match the current proposal
16:28:42 <paolo> Luc: where is this explained? DM part I or primer? seeking advice
16:28:46 <GK> q+ to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:17 <pgroth> ack GK
16:29:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:25 <paolo> Curt: suggest to use derivation simply, not tied into the roles and not tied back to gen/usage. These details may not go in part I
16:29:49 <Luc> q+
16:30:01 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:30:11 <paolo> GK: the entity-entity derivation can be accomplished by introducing an activity.
16:30:45 <pgroth> q?
16:30:56 <pgroth> we have time :-)
16:31:00 <paolo> Luc: but activities may be unknown, and also may not be known how "source" entities contributed, so a link into the derivation record is needed
16:31:01 <Curt> q+ could attributes be used to tie that?
16:31:02 <tlebo> q+
16:31:12 <pgroth> q?
16:31:15 <paolo> GK: not sure -- to be discussed further
16:31:26 <tlebo> q-
16:31:41 <tlebo> q+ to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:31:53 <pgroth> q+
16:31:55 <paolo> Curt: can't role be used
16:32:13 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
16:32:13 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:32:20 <paolo> Luc: roles in this case superseded by instances of usage/gen -- so need to be able to refer to those
16:32:39 <paolo> tlebo: should new defs go in WD4 or WD5
16:32:54 <GK> q+ to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events?  (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:33:06 <paolo> pgroth: suggest WD4 as it simplifies work on PROV-O, gives it only one derivation to work with
16:33:19 <pgroth> q?
16:33:23 <paolo> tlebo: agree
16:33:29 <tlebo> q-
16:33:33 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
16:33:50 <stainPhone> @tlebo +1
16:34:02 <pgroth> q?
16:34:10 <pgroth> q?
16:34:24 <pgroth> ack GK
16:34:24 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events?  (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:34:25 <paolo> GK: please continue discussion on the list. still some confusion
16:34:27 <Luc> To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 <Luc> PROPOSED: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 <stainPhone> yes, how cam tou talk anput usage without the using activity? 
16:34:51 <stainPhone> +1
16:34:52 <Curt> +1
16:34:53 <GK> +1
16:34:53 <paolo> +1
16:34:55 <tlebo> +1
16:34:57 <satya> +1
16:34:57 <Mike> +1
16:34:57 <dgarijo> +1
16:34:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:34:58 <SamCoppens> +1
16:34:58 <smiles> +1
16:35:03 <jcheney> +1
16:35:11 <pgroth> Accepted: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:35:39 <GK> I think freezing an editors draft is editor's call
16:36:03 <paolo> Luc: incorporate proposal for derivation in WD4, then freeze WD4. fixed URL for internal use only
16:36:06 <pgroth> q?
16:36:36 <Luc> q+
16:36:37 <paolo> q+
16:36:49 <stainPhone> so wd4 will not be published? or later w/provo wd2 etc?
16:36:53 <Curt> PROV-N
16:36:55 <paolo> Luc: can we find a name for the ASN?
16:36:56 <Curt> ISSUE 273
16:37:13 <pgroth> q?
16:37:14 <stainPhone> something non-abstract! ;)
16:37:20 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:37:43 <paolo> q-
16:37:57 <stainPhone> PROV-N +1
16:37:58 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/273
16:38:03 <tlebo> PROV-N +1
16:38:04 <paolo> proposals so far: PROV-N and "functional notation" 
16:38:11 <zednik> PROV-N +1
16:38:13 <GK> I'm OK with PROV-N.  "functional notation" by analogy with OWL
16:38:21 <pgroth> PROV-0, PROV-DM, PROV-AQ, PROV-Primer
16:38:25 <paolo> PROV-N +1
16:38:43 <pgroth> PROV-N
16:38:43 <GK> (But I'd prefer it as an appendix in part 1)
16:38:50 <dgarijo> PROV-N +1 
16:39:08 <SamCoppens> PROV-N +1
16:39:12 <GK> +0.5 (don't care too much)
16:39:13 <paolo> yep I just voted :-)
16:39:14 <Curt> PROV-N +1
16:39:20 <satya> +1
16:39:33 <pgroth> Consensus, to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:47 <GK> I think most important thing is to update references in the text
16:39:48 <pgroth> Accepted: to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:57 <paolo> q+
16:40:07 <pgroth> ace paolo
16:40:10 <pgroth> ack paolo
16:40:11 <GK> q+
16:40:14 <pgroth> ack GK
16:40:49 <jun> I'll have to leave
16:41:20 <GK> Agree discuss for understanding
16:41:29 <Zakim> -jun
16:41:32 <Zakim> +??P5
16:41:46 <Zakim> - +1.443.212.aaaa
16:41:48 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
16:41:52 <Paolo_> (back)
16:42:18 <GK> GK: why is not being able to infer activity an issue in derivation?
16:42:27 <GK> Luc: (a) reproducibility
16:42:33 <GK> (b) analysis of traces
16:42:37 <Paolo_> Luc: issue with analysis with provenance traces
16:42:43 <Paolo_> (I can resume GK, thanks)
16:43:02 <pgroth> Zakim, who's load?
16:43:02 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:05 <Paolo_> Luc: type of activity important for reproducibility and analysis
16:43:07 <Zakim> -sandro
16:43:09 <pgroth> Zakim, who's loud?
16:43:09 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:20 <tlebo> zakim, who is making noise?
16:43:31 <Zakim> tlebo, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:43:58 <Paolo_> Luc: details about input bindings into a procedure are only known from the usage records associated with the derivation
16:44:15 <stainPhone> but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right? 
16:44:52 <Paolo_> Luc: practical POV: a given activity may use same entity multiple times, with different roles
16:45:24 <stainPhone> or is (equivalent of) inprecise-n out now?
16:45:33 <Paolo_> Luc: formal POV: in the context of OPM there is a need to kow which activity is associated with each derivation, roles allow for some completeness results
16:46:05 <satya> @GK, agree - derivation is not for incorporating activity information
16:46:06 <satya> q+
16:46:10 <pgroth> q?
16:46:22 <Paolo_> GK: explicit activity expression already allowed this. This E-E derivation useful when that's not available?
16:46:23 <GK> I understand there;'s a need to express this information, but I thought it was possible through explicit activity/event expressions; entity-entity is for when less info is available?
16:46:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Usage + Generation does not always allow inferring Derivation
16:47:07 <Paolo_> Luc: activities are not just function calls, entities can be consumed at any time -- usage does not imply derivation
16:47:09 <pgroth> q?
16:47:14 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:47:16 <stainPhone> q+
16:47:28 <GK> Ah  usage + generation !=> derivation - forgot that.
16:47:51 <Paolo_> satya: why should usage/generation/roles be brought into a derivation record?
16:48:04 <Paolo_> satya: we are not trying to make inferences using derivation
16:48:26 <GK> Stian not hearing you
16:48:29 <khalidbelhajjame> We didn't hear you Stian
16:48:51 <Paolo_> stian: (hard to hear)
16:48:53 <stainPhone> ok
16:48:57 <khalidbelhajjame> Still breaking Stian
16:48:59 <tlebo> is it this: 	but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right? 
16:49:01 <stainPhone> ill type, go ahead
16:49:11 <Paolo_> (I missed it)
16:49:11 <stainPhone> tlebo, right
16:50:14 <Paolo_> Luc: @stian example is correct
16:50:30 <Curt> You could even have e2 derived from e1 in two different ways (two usage roles, if you will) within the same activity
16:50:32 <Paolo_> Khalid: essentially used imprecise_n derivation
16:50:45 <stainPhone> that makes srnse. but then you cant refer to those usages and generations?
16:50:59 <pgroth> q+
16:51:05 <pgroth> ack stainPhone
16:51:06 <Paolo_> GK: is there a use case that requires this form of derivation? possibly can be rephrased in terms of the simpler use
16:51:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
16:51:38 <Paolo_> Luc: proposal does not involve embedding a generation / usage record into the derivation. just a reference to those records
16:51:40 <tlebo> @gk, I share your "orthogonalizatiaon" interest, but I view the current definition as a nice way of unifying the (otherwise isoloated) constructs.
16:51:58 <Zakim> -??P5
16:52:14 <Zakim> +??P3
16:52:18 <pgroth> divison
16:52:30 <Paolo_> zakim, ??P3 is me
16:52:30 <Zakim> +Paolo_; got it
16:52:43 <Paolo_> Luc: will put an example in the repo for discussion
16:52:44 <pgroth> q?
16:52:46 <GK> (I would like to see a use-case that *requires* the complex form of derivation.)
16:53:32 <stainPhone> if wasDerivedFrom(a,b) wasGenBy(a,x) used(b,x) then you are not guarantee that a was derived through that usage of b  
16:53:52 <pgroth> q?
16:53:55 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
16:53:59 <GK> OK, if it's useful, then maybe it can be descrtibed as a syntactic sugaring?
16:54:32 <Paolo_> pgroth: possibly more than syntactic sugar?
16:54:36 <pgroth> q?
16:54:39 <satya> @Stian: yes agree
16:54:40 <GK> Thanks for letting us air the topic.
16:54:41 <Paolo_> GK: hopefully the example will reveal that
16:54:52 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:54:53 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:54:54 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:54:55 <Zakim> -Luc
16:54:56 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:54:56 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:54:57 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:54:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:54:59 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:55:01 <Zakim> -GK
16:55:04 <Zakim> -??P64
16:55:10 <Zakim> - +329331aacc
16:55:11 <stainPhone> imagine used(bZip,x) wasGenBy(bZip, y) used(b,y)
16:55:16 <Zakim> -Paolo_
16:55:17 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:55:17 <Zakim> -??P9
16:55:33 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:55:38 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:55:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:55:43 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
16:55:43 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:55:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, Curt_Tilmes, GK, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, jcheney, dgarijo,
16:55:46 <Zakim> ... pgroth, +329331aacc, Paolo_
16:55:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:55:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:55:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:55:52 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000346