IRC log of prov on 2012-01-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
16:00:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:00:16 [Luc]
are you back?
16:00:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
16:00:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
16:00:20 [trackbot]
Date: 12 January 2012
16:00:24 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be prove
16:00:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
16:00:30 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
16:00:30 [jun]
Yes! Glad to be back! First week back at work!
16:00:35 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
16:00:38 [pgroth]
16:00:39 [Luc]
16:00:39 [dgarijo]
Hi Jun!
16:00:48 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
16:00:53 [Luc]
only a few thousand messages to catch up with ;-)
16:00:53 [jun]
@luc: thanks
16:01:03 [Zakim]
16:01:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:06 [jun]
@luc, yep:)
16:01:11 [pgroth]
Zakim, make logs public
16:01:19 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:30 [pgroth]
16:01:40 [satya]
I can scribe
16:01:41 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:01:45 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:01:48 [pgroth]
Scribe: Daniel
16:01:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth
16:01:53 [pgroth]
Scribe Daniel Garijo
16:02:01 [dgarijo]
although I have a bad sound quality today :(
16:02:03 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:10 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:02:23 [Zakim]
16:02:59 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:01 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [dgarijo]
Paul: as usual, vote on the minutes of last week
16:03:12 [pgroth]
16:03:14 [dgarijo]
16:03:15 [satya]
16:03:20 [jcheney]
16:03:22 [olaf]
olaf has joined #prov
16:03:23 [jun]
16:03:23 [tlebo]
16:03:23 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:03:26 [Curt]
16:03:31 [Paolo]
16:03:39 [MikeLang]
16:03:43 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P18 is me
16:03:51 [pgroth]
Accepted Minutes January 5 2012
16:04:05 [pgroth]
16:04:06 [dgarijo]
Paul: review of actions items
16:04:21 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:04:26 [dgarijo]
... 1) Action on Paul to write a blog on overview
16:04:40 [dgarijo]
... about the PROV activities
16:04:45 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:04:47 [pgroth]
16:05:04 [Zakim]
16:05:04 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
16:05:11 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
16:05:27 [Zakim]
16:05:34 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:05:39 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.093.aacc
16:05:43 [Zakim]
16:05:45 [dgarijo]
... Luc had an action item to write a blog post with the diffs
16:05:57 [dgarijo]
... Satya had an action to look at a number of issues
16:06:12 [olaf]
zakim, aacc is me
16:06:14 [dgarijo]
Satya: I have been working on it
16:06:23 [Zakim]
+olaf; got it
16:06:57 [dgarijo]
Paul: please sign on the f2f page so I can make the appropriate arrangements
16:07:03 [dgarijo]
... we need scribes
16:07:14 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-AQ changes
16:08:10 [pgroth]
16:08:29 [dgarijo]
... gk tried to address a number of issues
16:08:52 [dgarijo]
... made a review and a bunch of editorial clarifications
16:08:57 [pgroth]
16:09:04 [Zakim]
16:09:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aadd
16:09:33 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:09:43 [dgarijo]
... question about xml examples. Do we want them? where should they come in?
16:09:51 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:10:33 [dgarijo]
... ??? suggested pingback to know when the provenance has been recorded
16:10:41 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aaee
16:10:52 [pgroth]
16:10:55 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:10:57 [pgroth]
16:10:59 [dgarijo]
... paul has to still to review the changes to see if completely agrees with it
16:11:22 [Zakim]
+ +329331aaff
16:11:25 [pgroth]
16:11:44 [pgroth]
16:11:52 [pgroth]
16:11:57 [dgarijo]
... update on issues in prov-dm
16:12:06 [SamCoppens]
zakim, +329331aaff is me
16:12:06 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
16:12:07 [AndroUser]
AndroUser has joined #prov
16:12:17 [dgarijo]
... most of the issues have been raised/resolved.
16:12:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.608.aagg
16:12:35 [Zakim]
- +44.789.470.aaee
16:12:45 [Deborah]
Deborah has joined #prov
16:12:48 [dgarijo]
Luc: we have to group the issues. 105 is still open.
16:13:03 [dgarijo]
... will follow up a response
16:13:15 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aahh
16:13:52 [satya]
@Luc, yes I am now reviewing the updates in DM and will respond to these issues soon
16:13:53 [pgroth]
16:13:59 [dgarijo]
... tomorrow morning will start another pass on the document to prepare it for review by the next telecon
16:14:08 [Luc]
@satya, thanks
16:14:08 [dgarijo]
... please satya review the pending issues
16:14:09 [Zakim]
- +44.789.470.aahh
16:14:21 [AndroUser]
zakim, +44.789.470.aahh is me
16:14:21 [Zakim]
sorry, AndroUser, I do not recognize a party named '+44.789.470.aahh'
16:14:22 [dgarijo]
satya: ok
16:14:41 [DeborahM]
DeborahM has joined #prov
16:14:52 [dgarijo]
paul: are this already in your action?
16:15:09 [dgarijo]
Luc: no. That action is from several weeks ago
16:15:20 [AndroUser]
the "vacant" conference bridge is fighting me
16:15:20 [dgarijo]
paul: satya, replace the action with a new one.
16:15:32 [pgroth]
Action: Satya to address issues in
16:15:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-52 - Address issues in [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-01-19].
16:15:44 [pgroth]
Topic: prov-o
16:16:02 [satya]
Meeting minutes from last PROV-O call:
16:16:07 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aaii
16:16:38 [dgarijo]
satya: dgarijo has created a list of issues, and we have been resolving them
16:16:53 [dgarijo]
... still have 3 main bullets to complete the list.
16:17:12 [dgarijo]
... we have been recording the changes to make in the doc
16:17:27 [pgroth]
16:17:34 [dgarijo]
... some issues have been raised.
16:17:56 [Luc]
can you indicate what requires discussion with dm?
16:18:02 [dgarijo]
16:18:16 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
16:18:21 [Luc]
16:18:33 [pgroth]
ack luc
16:18:49 [dgarijo]
satya: you'll see the changes to the html doc soon (next telecon)
16:19:15 [dgarijo]
Luc: can you identify what are the issues to be discused within dm?
16:19:15 [satya]
Meeting minutes PROV_O:
16:19:53 [tlebo] ?
16:20:02 [dgarijo]
satya: some concerns about making wasStartedBy and wasEndedBy subclasses of wasAssociatedWith
16:20:41 [dgarijo]
Stephan: some classes seem to be modeling things with different semantics. Also actedOnBehalfOf
16:21:42 [dgarijo]
luc: some of the issues could be raised as issues against prov-o
16:22:20 [dgarijo]
luc: none of the editors will be at f2f
16:22:49 [khalidbelhajjame]
I ll be there
16:22:51 [tlebo]
I'll be calling in to F2F2.
16:22:53 [dgarijo]
satya: some of the authors are going to attend: Daniel, Stian, Khalid
16:22:56 [pgroth]
16:22:57 [AndroUser]
not tim?
16:23:38 [dgarijo]
paul: so, in summary, you will be raising issues against dm soon.
16:23:42 [dgarijo]
satya: yes
16:23:50 [pgroth]
16:24:08 [jcheney]
16:24:10 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-Semantics
16:24:29 [dgarijo]
jcheney: I've been updating what's there
16:24:43 [dgarijo]
... answered some emails
16:25:31 [dgarijo]
... diference between the 3 level and 2 level ???
16:25:47 [jcheney]
16:26:44 [satya]
16:26:47 [dgarijo]
... what the alternatives are about this issue
16:27:01 [Zakim]
16:27:15 [dgarijo]
luc: this could be raised as an issue against the semantics
16:27:35 [dgarijo]
jcheney: will do that
16:27:40 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:28:20 [dgarijo]
satya: Ithink the distinction between entities and real world entities is very important
16:28:46 [stian]
+1 to satua
16:28:47 [dgarijo]
... the real world things have no relevance in our context
16:29:18 [Luc]
16:29:20 [Paolo]
@satya: not relevant for the language, but important distinction for the semantics!
16:29:55 [pgroth]
16:29:59 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:30:00 [Paolo]
so "things" are not part of the description, but we are talking about the semantics here, i.e., the interpretaion of the language constructs
16:30:13 [dgarijo]
luc: From the beggining we made a distinction between the record and the real world thing. Thus it is part of dm
16:30:48 [satya]
@Paolo: In our context that is any computer science application - there are no real world things
16:31:12 [pgroth]
16:31:15 [Paolo]
16:31:24 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
16:31:35 [dgarijo]
@satya: what about the provenance of Mona Lisa? That is a real world thing..
16:32:30 [dgarijo]
Paolo: we're not talking about provenance within a specific system.
16:32:40 [stian]
@dharijo no, you are talking about a characterisaton
16:32:45 [satya]
@Daniel: No, the "Mona Lisa" in any application is a representation/abstraction of the real world thing - the real world thing is never part of any computer science application
16:32:50 [pgroth]
16:33:17 [dgarijo]
paul: maybe we can pick this at the end of the call
16:33:46 [stian]
is it the painting? the model?
16:34:02 [dgarijo]
@stian, satya: ok
16:34:33 [stian]
(have to go now)
16:34:35 [dgarijo]
luc: will try to catch up with the tracker.
16:34:41 [Zakim]
- +44.789.470.aaii
16:35:01 [pgroth]
16:35:15 [dgarijo]
jcheney: we have to identify where are we going to find this at the time of the f2f (next 2 weeks)
16:35:20 [Zakim]
16:35:43 [Zakim]
16:35:51 [dgarijo]
... alternate of, specialization of semantics.
16:37:19 [dgarijo]
paul: when do you like people to read the document?
16:37:49 [dgarijo]
jcheney: people can look at it now and provide feedback
16:38:01 [Paolo]
sorry I have to go...
16:38:33 [satya]
I will review
16:38:34 [dgarijo]
pgroth: volunteers?
16:38:52 [pgroth]
16:38:52 [pgroth]
16:38:57 [dgarijo]
... paul, satya are volunteers.
16:39:20 [tlebo]
16:39:20 [pgroth]
Topic: Accounts in Prov
16:39:30 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:39:42 [dgarijo]
tlebo: I haven't had a chance to answer all the people yet
16:39:44 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:39:59 [dgarijo]
... if anibody has something right now it will be ok
16:40:02 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:40:22 [dgarijo]
khalid: how entities are differentiated in different accounts
16:40:29 [dgarijo]
... ?
16:40:46 [pgroth]
16:40:49 [dgarijo]
... it's more a practical point of view.
16:41:06 [dgarijo]
tim: TRIG syntax is a bit confusing in those examples.
16:41:43 [dgarijo]
... how can we have this scoped entities without the dcterms:identifiers.
16:42:21 [dgarijo]
khalid: so you think there could be problems having different entities scoped in different accounts
16:42:28 [satya]
@Tim: +1, also having scoped identifiers (aka URI) is contrary to RDF semantics and global scope of URIs
16:43:09 [dgarijo]
khalid: how do I identify an entity across different accounts.
16:43:24 [dgarijo]
Tim. the same URI is mentioned in both named graphs.
16:43:34 [pgroth]
16:44:10 [dgarijo]
... there is no requirement that the inner accounts have to be mentioned in the outer accounts
16:44:11 [pgroth]
16:44:15 [dgarijo]
khalid: thanks
16:45:03 [Luc]
16:45:04 [dgarijo]
paul: are you having problems with ids in dm?
16:45:18 [dgarijo]
tim: maybe I'm misreading ids in dm
16:45:30 [dgarijo]
luc: your interpretation is ok
16:45:45 [dgarijo]
... I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of record
16:46:56 [dgarijo]
tim: in the rdf world a reocrd is a triple or an rdf graph.
16:46:57 [satya]
@Luc, what are the columns of these tables - Entity, Agent, wasGeneratedBy?
16:47:15 [dgarijo]
luc: that would be routed in a specific subject.
16:47:23 [MacTed]
16:47:32 [stian]
stian has joined #prov
16:48:03 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:48:03 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:48:03 [dgarijo]
... if we have an entity Luc in Boston type person type entity, everything would be rooted from that.
16:48:07 [pgroth]
16:48:10 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:48:10 [satya]
16:48:12 [MacTed]
16:48:38 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
16:48:50 [dgarijo]
MacTed: a record in my mind is a single row in a database. In the rdf world is a triple
16:49:31 [dgarijo]
luc: a record in dm is a set of triples in the rdf context
16:49:40 [zednik]
16:49:41 [zednik]
noun |ˈrekərd|
16:49:41 [zednik]
1 a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, esp. an account of an act or occurrence kept in writing or some other permanent form: identification was made through dental records | a record of meter readings.
16:50:07 [dgarijo]
MacTed: so you're changing the understanding of record that is different in many areas.
16:50:31 [dgarijo]
... I keep going in circles
16:50:53 [dgarijo]
... the common terms are not used according to their common meanings.
16:50:59 [dgarijo]
luc: I disagree
16:51:21 [dgarijo]
... nobody has suggested an alternative to this terms
16:51:30 [zednik]
database terminology is not common term usage
16:51:52 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:52:26 [dgarijo]
satya: if an entity is mapped to a table, what would be the columns of the table?
16:52:43 [dgarijo]
luc: activity, sart, end, etc.
16:52:49 [dgarijo]
... (example)
16:53:13 [Luc]
16:53:20 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:53:22 [tlebo]
it's sounding like "expression" _was_ a better term (the original "record"). What motivated the rename?
16:54:11 [dgarijo]
luc: satya, how are you suggesting to express that?
16:54:15 [MacTed]
:LucInBoston :wasWearing :whiteShirt
16:54:27 [dgarijo]
satya: Luc in Boston is an entity
16:55:11 [tlebo]
entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color "white"])
16:55:35 [Zakim]
16:55:40 [dgarijo]
satya: discussion about the Luc in Boston entity.
16:55:46 [GK]
zakim, ??p3 is me
16:55:46 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:55:50 [pgroth]
16:55:53 [Zakim]
16:56:41 [Luc]
entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color "white", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
16:57:25 [Luc]
entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="white", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
16:57:34 [dgarijo]
satya: I was trying to understand what an entity record mean. Luc in Boston has type person would be an entity record
16:57:49 [dgarijo]
Luc: I've extended what tim just posted
16:58:19 [dgarijo]
... you would map this to a series of triples
16:58:41 [dgarijo]
... entity record seems to map to a set of triples
16:58:54 [dgarijo]
satya: this is an example of relational db to rdf
16:59:03 [pgroth]
16:59:08 [dgarijo]
luc: I'm not reinventing the world
16:59:17 [Luc]
17:00:08 [dgarijo]
luc: I've posted the diagram of the document. That is how it would be recorded in a relational world
17:00:43 [dgarijo]
satya: it is an assertion about luc in boston. It is an important distinction to make
17:01:20 [tlebo]
I'm wondering what motivation we had to rename "expression" to "record".
17:01:36 [pgroth]
17:01:57 [tlebo]
+1 to satya pointing out the confusion of identifying the record or the characterized thing
17:02:31 [tlebo]
@luc, thanks.
17:02:31 [dgarijo]
luc: I'd like to explain what paulo and paul have been discussing. There are some inconsistencies in dm and we're trying to resolve them.
17:02:42 [tlebo]
luc: too much "language association" and was inappropriate.
17:02:44 [MacTed]
so, "entity record" is a collection of (one or more) assertions about an entity...
17:02:44 [MacTed]
(and an "entity record" is an entity in its own right, with assertions about it, etc.)
17:03:07 [MacTed]
some of the assertions about the "entity record" comprise the provenance of that record
17:03:10 [dgarijo]
luc: every record has an id
17:03:20 [GK]
+1 to Satya too (the "record" is artifact of ASN; shouldn't have representation in RDF translation)
17:03:20 [dgarijo]
satya: no, every entity has an id
17:04:03 [pgroth]
17:04:25 [GK]
What Luc is now describing is artifact of "the relational view" i.e. an implementation detail for *some* implementations.
17:04:43 [dgarijo]
tim: let luc describe the problem, and we try to solve it offline
17:04:58 [dgarijo]
luc: coming back what satya was saying
17:05:01 [Zakim]
17:05:05 [tlebo]
17:05:23 [dgarijo]
... luc in boston in my view is not the key of the record.
17:05:36 [dgarijo]
@tlebo: thanks, sorry.
17:05:42 [Luc]
entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="black", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
17:06:16 [Luc]
entity id + account id = natural key for entity record
17:06:21 [satya]
exactly - so luc_in_boston is key for Entity "Luc in Boston"
17:06:22 [dgarijo]
... luc in boston could have different color of tshirts, but it would be the same entity
17:06:28 [satya]
not the record
17:06:32 [tlebo]
luc: white and black shirt on same :luc_in_boston
17:06:36 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
17:07:19 [satya]
@Luc, then we need a distinct identifier for the record itself
17:07:30 [Luc]
entity_reocrd_id001: entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="black", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
17:07:52 [dgarijo]
... an approach to this is to have an entity record Id that would be the key for that record. Now I would need an extra column
17:08:08 [satya]
@Luc: ok
17:08:14 [dgarijo]
... if we do that, that's great.
17:08:15 [dgarijo]
17:08:24 [GK]
@satya - isn't the record its own identifier?
17:08:25 [dgarijo]
... we can simplify a lot of the text
17:08:25 [tlebo]
entity(:luc_in_boston_on_Monday, [shirt_color="black", location=Boston, name="luc", specializationOf=:luc_in_boston_in_July])
17:08:30 [MacTed]
"Named Graph" :-)
17:08:34 [tlebo]
entity(:luc_in_boston_on_Tuesday, [shirt_color="white", location=Boston, name="luc", specializationOf=:luc_in_boston_in_July])
17:08:43 [Luc]
entity id + account id = natural key for entity record
17:08:46 [dgarijo]
... but from the rdf perspective may not be nice. It would imply new ids
17:09:15 [satya]
@Luc: the natural key for entity record is something different from key for entity
17:09:27 [tlebo]
@luc, but that throws the benefits of URIs out the window (and violates AWWW)
17:09:36 [satya]
@GK: I didn't understand
17:09:39 [pgroth]
17:09:39 [GK]
I think we are trying to turn ASn "records" into implementation artifacts, when they are explicitly an *abstract* syntax for talking about provenance assertions.
17:09:50 [pgroth]
17:09:51 [MacTed]
G-box would give the ontology of the accounts (i.e., the schema of the "entity records")
17:09:51 [MacTed]
G-snaps would be the account ("entity record") instances
17:09:51 [MacTed]
G-texts are the serializations of those instances
17:09:59 [Luc]
17:10:03 [tlebo]
17:10:13 [dgarijo]
paul: the issue is clear.
17:10:46 [dgarijo]
tim: trying to respond to Luc about naming the resource within the account.
17:10:53 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
17:11:05 [dgarijo]
luc: luc in Boston is the name of the entity.
17:11:30 [dgarijo]
MacTed: so the entity could have 1 million entities
17:11:40 [dgarijo]
... and be referring to the same thing
17:11:44 [GK]
Why does ASN use URIs anyway?
17:11:45 [MacTed]
17:11:56 [MacTed]
s/names/URIs, identifiers, names/
17:11:59 [tlebo]
17:12:38 [pgroth]
17:13:21 [dgarijo]
... problem on discovering other descriptions of the same entity the first time that I'm going to describe it. How do I know that there are others?
17:13:22 [pgroth]
17:14:12 [pgroth]
17:14:51 [dgarijo]
luc: the uri luc in boston is not enough to identify the records
17:15:09 [dgarijo]
... that is why you need to know which account belongs to
17:15:11 [tlebo]
@luc, then you mistakenly named luc in account 2.
17:15:45 [Luc]
@tlebo, why?
17:15:47 [tlebo]
@luc, you knew that they are different, but named them the same thing.
17:15:56 [dgarijo]
satya: adding the acocunt id + the record does not make it an ? entity record?
17:16:18 [Luc]
@tlebo, no, it's intentional, I am giving two hypothesis about what luc did
17:16:20 [dgarijo]
luc: raising issues might be the best thing
17:16:32 [Zakim]
17:16:35 [Zakim]
17:16:36 [Zakim]
17:16:37 [Zakim]
17:16:38 [Zakim]
17:16:38 [Zakim]
17:16:39 [Zakim]
17:16:40 [Zakim]
17:16:42 [Zakim]
17:16:43 [Zakim]
- +1.202.223.aabb
17:16:46 [Zakim]
- +1.443.708.aaaa
17:16:59 [Zakim]
- +1.518.608.aagg
17:17:02 [Curt]
zakim, +1.202.223.aabb is me
17:17:02 [Zakim]
sorry, Curt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.202.223.aabb'
17:17:09 [Zakim]
17:17:16 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:17:21 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:17:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:17:21 [Zakim]
17:17:25 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telecon
17:17:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:17:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.443.708.aaaa, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.202.223.aabb, MacTed, Satya_Sahoo, tlebo, jcheney, sandro, khalidbelhajjame, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf,
17:17:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:17:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:17:28 [Zakim]
... [ISI], +1.518.633.aadd, +44.789.470.aaee, SamCoppens, +1.518.608.aagg, +44.789.470.aahh, +44.789.470.aaii, GK
17:17:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:17:29 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:17:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Satya to address issues in [1]
17:17:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in