Chatlog 2012-10-04

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 21:04, 7 October 2012 by Sandro (Talk | contribs)

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.

14:56:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:56:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:56:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:56:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:56:36 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012
14:56:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:56:43 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:56:43 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:55 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:57:02 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:57:08 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier
14:57:14 <pgroth> Regrets: Tom De Nies
14:57:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:40 <Zakim> + +1.818.415.aaaa
14:57:51 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:57:59 <ivan> zakim, code?
14:57:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
14:58:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:58:15 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:26 <Zakim> +ivan
14:58:49 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
14:59:03 <Zakim> +??P11
14:59:40 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P11 is me
14:59:44 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:59:46 <Zakim> +??P56
15:00:01 <Luc> zakim, +??P56 is me
15:00:01 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+??P56'
15:00:06 <Luc> zakim, ??P56 is me
15:00:06 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:09 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:00:13 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:00:13 <CraigTrim> zakim, +1.818.415.aaaa is me
15:00:14 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
15:00:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:51 <pgroth>
15:00:58 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon
15:01:01 <ivan> +1
15:01:08 <CraigTrim> +1
15:01:14 <Paolo> +1
15:01:16 <Dong> +1
15:01:21 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:21 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:01:24 <Zakim> +Luc.a
15:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see CraigTrim, [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc.a
15:01:27 <Zakim> +??P2
15:01:35 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:35 <christine> christine has joined #prov
15:01:47 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon
15:02:03 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:02:22 <Paolo> pgroth: what to do about long-lasting open actions
15:02:29 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
15:02:43 <Zakim> +stain
15:02:46 <Zakim> +jcheney
15:03:01 <Paolo> ivan: it's ok to time out on them and close them, noting that no reply was received
15:03:45 <pgroth>
15:03:53 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:04:20 <Paolo> pgroth: finally completed his action, see link above
15:04:54 <Paolo> action 118 (?) also taken care of
15:04:54 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 118. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:05:27 <Paolo> action-113 done (issue 446)
15:05:37 <Paolo> action-116 still ongoing
15:05:45 <pgroth> q?
15:06:08 <pgroth> Topic: PROV Exit Criteria
15:06:21 <Paolo> TOPIC: PROV Exit Criteria
15:06:39 <pgroth>
15:06:57 <Paolo> pgroth: exit criteria were discussed at the latest F2F meeting
15:07:27 <pgroth>
15:07:47 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aabb
15:07:48 <Paolo> exit criteria are here:
15:08:38 <pgroth> q?
15:08:42 <ivan> q+
15:08:47 <Paolo> pgroth: these criteria apply to the DM and ontology
15:08:47 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:09:07 <Paolo> ivan: what is an "implementation" in this context
15:09:08 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:09:22 <Zakim> -Luc
15:09:37 <Paolo> pgroth: using PROV in a dataset, e.g. markung up a web page
15:09:51 <Paolo> pgroth: a vocabulayr for ontologies that extend prov
15:10:14 <Paolo> pgroth: SW that generates and consumes PROV models
15:10:47 <Paolo> ivan: fine, suggest adding this phrasing to the wiki page containing the exit criteria
15:10:59 <stainN7> stainN7 has joined #prov
15:11:11 <Dong> @Paul: Sure
15:11:17 <pgroth> q?
15:11:17 <Paolo> ivan: also, when implementations are collected, tag them according to the category where they belong
15:11:29 <Paolo> pgroth: are people happy with those 3 categories?
15:11:33 <pgroth> q?
15:12:27 <Paolo> pgroth: these work for DM and O primarily. What would the criteria look like for CONSTRAINTS?
15:13:05 <Paolo> pgroth: need to demonstrate interoperability. 
15:14:07 <Paolo> pgroth: proposed criteria: multiple implementations, and show that they support each of the constraints defined in the doc. This is done through a catalog of reference test cases that the implementation must be able to pass
15:14:28 <jcheney> q+
15:14:36 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
15:14:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:14:49 <Paolo> pgroth: the implementation must correctly evaluate the test case against the constraints it is meant to exercise
15:15:01 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:15:01 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:15:47 <stainNexus7> stainNexus7 has joined #prov
15:15:48 <Paolo> jcheney: clarification: the criteria include the constraints but exclude the inferences
15:16:07 <Paolo> pgroth: yes, but you probably need to do inferences as well as part of the implementation
15:16:11 <stainNexus7> Who would build those test cases? The wg?
15:16:46 <ivan> q+
15:16:52 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:16:57 <Paolo> jcheney: are the test cases based on 'validity' which requires inferencing? or is inferencing one possible way to do the implementation
15:17:21 <jcheney> so perhaps the test cases should try to *exercise* the inferences
15:17:44 <Luc> +q
15:17:48 <Paolo> ivan: the constr doc contains inference rules, not just constraints. So are there inferences that will not be tested by the test cases?
15:18:54 <Paolo> jcheney: inferences are a mechanism to define validity, however in the doc we specify that other mechanisms to check validity are fine as well
15:19:31 <Paolo> ivan: that's fine then
15:20:14 <Paolo> Luc: to confirm what jcheney wrote above -- but the test case won't check that inferences have been applied
15:20:41 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:21:02 <hook> q+
15:22:10 <Paolo> hook: interoperability should show that producers and consumers of provenance actually can use the spec to exchange prov
15:22:12 <Zakim> +??P28
15:22:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:22:21 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:22:30 <Paolo> hook: the current interpretation of interop does not address that
15:23:04 <Paolo> pgroth: true for CONSTR, however prov DM and prov O do require demonstration of interop according to the exit criteria
15:23:05 <Luc> q+
15:23:27 <pgroth> ack hook
15:24:12 <Paolo> Luc: are we try to gain evidence for each prov-* individually, or collectively as a whole?
15:24:32 <Paolo> Luc: for example, what does it mean for DM to interop "on its own"?
15:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: for DM, you do have to go through prov-N or prov-O. the impl. should specify which encoding it supports
15:25:14 <Paolo> pgroth: incl. XML
15:25:19 <Zakim> +??P1
15:25:25 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:27:03 <Paolo> ivan: do we really need an implementation for prov-n which is meant for human consumption?  it's not meant to be a machine-exchangeable format
15:27:28 <Paolo> Luc: indeed machine processing initially not the primary goal
15:27:47 <Dong> @Luc, when you mentioned evidence, did you mean that we need to gather proofs beyond submitted answers to the implementation questionnaire?
15:28:16 <ivan> q+
15:28:20 <Paolo> pgroth: this is good feedback to produce the next version of the exit criteria. we need to be more specific
15:28:22 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:28:23 <ivan>
15:28:33 <Luc> @dong, submitted answers is what I think we have agreed
15:28:53 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aabb
15:28:58 <Dong> @luc, thanks, that's good.
15:29:02 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
15:29:25 <Luc> was the functional syntax document a rec?
15:29:27 <Paolo> ivan: the EC for OWL2 is relevant because it's got an analog in a functional syntax, which is not even mentioned in the EC
15:29:39 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
15:29:54 <Paolo> ivan: because the functional syntax can be mapped to one of the serializations
15:30:23 <ivan>
15:31:04 <Paolo> ivan: the doc above is analogous to prov-n in our case
15:31:43 <Luc> +q
15:31:47 <Paolo> ivan: so the EC should really apply to prov-o and prov-constr
15:31:58 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:32:01 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
15:32:26 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
15:32:26 <Paolo> Luc: should different implementations come from different institutions?
15:32:56 <Paolo> ivan: if EC call for two impl, then yes they should come from different institutions
15:33:13 <pgroth> q?
15:33:16 <Luc> q+
15:33:19 <Paolo> pgroth: plan to vote on EC next week
15:33:44 <pgroth> action: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week
15:33:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Revise exit criteria for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-11].
15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:34:56 <Paolo> ivan: EC should be fully completed by the time we leave CR, not when we enter CR
15:35:22 <dgarijo> and how do we add an application to the implementation catalog?
15:35:29 <Paolo> pgroth: need volunteers to build test cases for the constraints
15:35:47 <Luc> we can already collect all examples from our specs
15:35:55 <dgarijo> me
15:36:05 <dgarijo> I think Jun was interested as well
15:36:29 <Luc> dong?
15:36:40 <Dong> Sorry, I missed it
15:36:41 <Paolo> Paolo: I can help but can't commit time at this point
15:36:44 <dgarijo> I don't see her here, so I'll contact her to see if she's interested.
15:37:11 <pgroth> me
15:37:17 <Luc> me with Dong
15:37:25 <Dong> Yes
15:37:32 <Luc> q+
15:37:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:37:42 <tlebo> after I see a test case or two, I'll reconsider adding some.
15:38:20 <ivan> q+
15:38:22 <Paolo> Luc: once they are defined, they should be validated "by expert hand"
15:38:24 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:39:08 <Dong> @Paul, I've understood that it's a part of the work I'm involved in preparing the implementation report
15:39:10 <Paolo> ivan: need a dynamics in place to manage the responses. What is the reporting mechanism?
15:39:21 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically believe them
15:39:25 <Curt> believe and document their assertion
15:39:29 <Luc> q+
15:39:57 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:40:04 <Paolo> ivan: this means that responses will be managed manually, which may be problematic to scale
15:40:44 <Paolo> Luc: have 100-200 tests at the moment, we should have a simple mechanism with an ID per test...
15:41:17 <Paolo> ivan: a basic mechanism should be defined, we must specify how implementors are expected to report back
15:41:27 <pgroth> q?
15:41:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Issues
15:43:23 <Zakim> -stain
15:43:49 <Paolo> pgroth: going through the list....
15:44:14 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aaee
15:44:48 <Paolo> pgroth: 520 left till next time as there was discussion
15:45:40 <Paolo> pgroth: (isolating the issues that received feedback and discussion)
15:47:32 <pgroth> ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515,
15:47:46 <pgroth> q?
15:47:52 <Paolo> pgroth: the issues above have reached resolution
15:48:21 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved
15:48:45 <ivan> +1
15:48:48 <tlebo> +1
15:48:50 <dgarijo> +1
15:48:57 <jcheney> +1
15:49:03 <Dong> +1
15:49:03 <Paolo> +1
15:49:10 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved
15:50:16 <pgroth> Topic: UML and Naming
15:50:39 <ivan> issue-509?
15:50:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open
15:50:39 <trackbot>
15:50:43 <Paolo> pgroth: see issue-509
15:50:55 <Zakim> +??P4
15:51:09 <Luc> q+
15:51:15 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:52:04 <Paolo> Luc: earlier versions of the docs show capitalized classes, and relationships not capitalized. that led to inconsistencies
15:52:06 <Paolo> Luc
15:52:32 <Paolo> Luc: we addressed by cap "class level" elements and nocap for "instance level" elements
15:52:56 <Paolo> Luc: diff. notations use different styles. in prov-n nothing is cap
15:53:18 <Paolo> Luc: so we will be inconsistent anyway whatever change we make
15:54:35 <Paolo> Luc: in prov-o class derivations are cap, for instance. There is no solution that works for all of them
15:54:43 <pgroth> q?
15:54:45 <ivan> q+
15:54:47 <Paolo> Luc: we tried to make prov-dm consistent with itself
15:55:06 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:55:25 <Paolo> ivan: as the one reopening the issue: looking at the primer on its own. because of its role, felt that consistency was important
15:56:00 <Paolo> ivan: the primer has dual syntax for examples. in prov-n there is no cap, while turtle is also consistent with prov-o
15:56:43 <Paolo> ivan: but fig. after sec 2 uses an inconsistent cap mode, and that is not explained. so proposed to make it consistent with prov-o
15:56:50 <Luc> q+
15:56:56 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:57:09 <Paolo> ivan: so just asking to make the figure consistent with one syntax in the text.
15:57:18 <Paolo> Luc: the figure uses the prov-dm convention
15:57:41 <Paolo> Luc: it's a class diagram, not an instance.
15:58:04 <pgroth> q+
15:58:15 <ivan> q+
15:59:07 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:59:21 <Paolo> ivan: the figures in the primer may differ from those in the DM. because it's the primer, readers won't appreciate the alignment with prov,
15:59:40 <Paolo> ivan: rather they will be confused by the change in cap style
16:00:03 <dgarijo> +1 to what paul suggested.
16:00:19 <Paolo> pgroth: we should be using the diagram in prov-o instead, it's not UML but it's "classes and properties" and may work better here
16:00:32 <Paolo> ivan: happy with that
16:00:38 <dgarijo>
16:01:14 <pgroth> q?
16:01:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:01:31 <tlebo> sounds good
16:01:48 <pgroth> accepted: use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer
16:04:32 <pgroth> q?
16:05:18 <tlebo> bye! Thanks, Paul.
16:05:21 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:05:24 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:05:25 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:05:27 <Zakim> -ivan
16:05:28 <Zakim> -Luc
16:05:29 <Dong> thanks, bye all
16:05:30 <Zakim> -Dong
16:05:33 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
16:05:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:05:34 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:05:40 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aaee
16:05:41 <Zakim> -Luc.a
16:05:41 <Zakim> -??P1
16:05:43 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:05:49 <Zakim> -??P4
16:06:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth
16:06:09 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:06:13 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, tlebo, Dong, stain, jcheney, +1.818.393.aabb, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc,
16:06:17 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aadd, +1.818.393.aaee
16:06:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:06:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in :
16:06:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week [1]
16:06:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
16:25:36 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
16:25:37 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended