From Provenance WG Wiki
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