IRC log of prov on 2012-02-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:52:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:52:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:52:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:52:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:52:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:52:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:52:21 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:21 [trackbot]
Date: 16 February 2012
15:52:29 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:29 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:45 [pgroth]
15:52:55 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:00 [pgroth]
Scribe: Eric Stephan
15:53:11 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:20 [pgroth]
Regrets: Mike Lang
15:54:06 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:54:13 [Zakim]
15:54:21 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:54:21 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:54:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.967.aaaa
15:55:46 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:56:40 [Zakim]
15:58:20 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:58:28 [Zakim]
15:58:56 [Zakim]
15:59:14 [Helena]
Helena has joined #prov
15:59:26 [Zakim]
+ +329331aabb
15:59:33 [Zakim]
15:59:46 [SamCoppens]
zakim, +329331aabb is me
15:59:46 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
15:59:53 [Helena]
zakim, ??P48 is me
15:59:53 [Zakim]
+Helena; got it
16:00:08 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
16:01:05 [Zakim]
16:01:16 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
16:01:32 [Zakim]
16:01:47 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:57 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:02:10 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P63 is probably me
16:02:21 [Zakim]
16:02:41 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:02:44 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:02:56 [Zakim]
16:03:04 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [Zakim]
+dgarijo?; got it
16:03:31 [Zakim]
16:03:44 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
16:03:50 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:03:54 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:03:55 [Helena]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:04:27 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:04:48 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: Paul still has to do the minues of the f2f2 meeting.
16:04:58 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (51%), Luc (13%), [IPcaller] (54%)
16:04:59 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: will be getting to it asap
16:05:00 [pgroth]
Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon:
16:05:12 [Zakim]
Helena, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (39%), Luc (34%), [IPcaller] (11%)
16:05:19 [Curt]
16:05:23 [tlebo]
16:05:24 [ERICstephan]
16:05:26 [jun]
16:05:28 [Helena]
16:05:34 [SamCoppens]
16:05:56 [pgroth]
Approved: Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon
16:06:03 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
16:06:06 [pgroth]
16:06:09 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: go over open actions, but not all
16:06:23 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: Action #52:
16:06:58 [dgarijo]
+1 for the minutes too
16:07:18 [ERICstephan]
pgroth:52 not closed yet because of 106
16:07:27 [ERICstephan]
16:07:37 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:07:39 [pgroth]
Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
16:07:46 [MacTed]
16:08:07 [MacTed]
s/of 106/of Issue-105/
16:08:32 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:08:48 [ERICstephan]
bring in HCLS and hoping stephan can validdate.
16:08:52 [ERICstephan]
Who was speaking?
16:08:55 [Zakim]
16:08:59 [jcheney]
zakim, ??p29 is me
16:09:01 [Helena]
ERICstephan: I was speaking
16:09:04 [dgarijo]
that sounds very interesting indeed.
16:09:06 [ERICstephan]
thank you
16:09:15 [Luc]
date was not set
16:09:20 [Zakim]
16:09:48 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:09:55 [Zakim]
16:10:33 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: action-63 due in one week's time
16:10:53 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-DM Simplification
16:10:54 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: need more scribes after next week
16:11:01 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
16:11:02 [pgroth]
ACTION-62: Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model
16:11:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-62 Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb notes added
16:11:23 [MacTed]
16:11:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-62 -- Luc Moreau to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb -- due 2012-02-16 -- OPEN
16:11:23 [trackbot]
16:11:30 [Luc]
16:11:31 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: update and produce intro to simplification
16:11:51 [ERICstephan]
Luc: Wiki page describes current work
16:12:29 [ERICstephan]
Luc: 3 parts, dropping the notion of account records
16:12:35 [Zakim]
16:12:50 [ERICstephan]
Luc: 3 levels of description and removed one of the levels, positive feedback
16:13:23 [ERICstephan]
Luc: 2nd doc, events, attributes been given values over periods of time, and constraints designed to data model
16:13:32 [Zakim]
16:13:59 [ERICstephan]
Luc: Last section, scrappy vs proper provenance. Consider various levels of description provide different refinements
16:14:30 [ERICstephan]
Luc: Move out the grammer and put it in a different document
16:14:42 [pgroth]
16:14:45 [pgroth]
16:14:52 [pgroth]
16:15:02 [dgarijo]
@Eric: I think it's scruffy, not scruppy ;)
16:15:24 [ERICstephan]
Luc: at the moment, the working copy there is not an editors draft yet
16:15:39 [pgroth]
Goals of the review:
16:15:41 [pgroth]
decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective
16:15:46 [pgroth]
recommend whether they become the new editor's draft
16:15:50 [ERICstephan]
for the reviewers, do the documents align with the simplification goals
16:16:21 [ERICstephan]
Luc: (these comments written by me from Luc)
16:16:54 [pgroth]
16:16:55 [ERICstephan]
Luc: If we can get agreement based on recommendations from the reviewers next week
16:17:00 [ERICstephan]
16:17:12 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:17:12 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:17:13 [MacTed]
16:17:17 [pgroth]
ack ERICstephan
16:17:18 [Zakim]
16:17:34 [christine]
christine has joined #prov
16:17:43 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
16:18:18 [ERICstephan]
MacTed: How do you give editor comments "this sentence is unweildy" (example)
16:18:24 [Zakim]
16:18:27 [pgroth]
16:18:29 [ERICstephan]
Luc: Add it to wiki page
16:18:36 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:18:51 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: assign specific reviewers with specific tasks
16:19:01 [Luc]
@helena, these are internal reviewers
16:19:03 [MacTed]
s/wiki page/http:\/\/\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/
16:19:05 [pgroth]
16:19:11 [tlebo]
16:19:49 [jun]
I can also do it
16:19:51 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: confirm Tim +1, Eric +1, Graham ?, Daniel + 1, MacTed +1, Curt +1 (already done)
16:20:02 [SamCoppens]
I can also
16:20:13 [pgroth]
EricS, Daniel, Jun, MacTed, Curt, SamCoppens
16:20:23 [jun]
the new structure looks good at a glance
16:20:52 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-O Ontology updated
16:20:55 [Zakim]
16:21:09 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: next topic, updated OWL file
16:21:12 [Zakim]
16:21:26 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: released and Satya update?
16:21:27 [jun]
zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
16:21:27 [Zakim]
sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
16:21:37 [jun]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:21:37 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
16:22:04 [satya]
16:22:16 [dgarijo]
and the summaries of the call are at:
16:22:26 [ERICstephan]
satya: after 2 weeks agreed on a series of changes
16:22:46 [pgroth]
owl file is at:
16:23:04 [ERICstephan]
satya: all incorporated in doc, there are still a number of issues, but for now the most recent changes have been reflected
16:23:10 [Luc]
16:23:44 [dgarijo]
Changes (which are the titan pad logs):,
16:23:57 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: PROV-O, does it have a good alignment with PROV-DM working draft 3?
16:24:15 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: has the ontology provide a simplified naming?
16:24:40 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: does the ontology fit within OWL with itself and does it create some type of natural RDF?
16:25:01 [pgroth]
16:25:08 [Luc]
16:25:15 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:25:16 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: reviewers, does it meet these goals any questions on review period
16:25:37 [ERICstephan]
luc: what process are we going to use to align PROV-O and PROV-DM?
16:25:49 [dgarijo]
16:25:56 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: good question can we defer to next section?
16:26:01 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
16:26:31 [ERICstephan]
dgarijo: alignment be discussed in PROV-O task force?
16:26:42 [ERICstephan]
Luc: alignment could be both directions
16:27:22 [jcheney]
alignment deliverable ==? ProvRDF?
16:27:25 [dgarijo]
+1 to pgroth.
16:27:26 [ERICstephan]
Luc: alignmnet deliverable and raise issues against that?
16:27:40 [pgroth]
16:28:28 [dgarijo]
smiles and Jun have already provided some feedback :)
16:28:29 [stephenc]
16:28:36 [Curt]
I'll be going over PROV-O too.
16:28:55 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: another one week review, confirm, Luc +1, Paolo +1, Eric +1, Stephen C +1, Curt +1
16:28:58 [pgroth]
Review prov-o: Luc, paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt
16:29:14 [satya]
Thanks everyone for the reviewing!
16:29:29 [pgroth]
16:29:31 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: same process applies, goes to list and we talk about it next week.
16:29:37 [pgroth]
Topic: ProvRDF Mappings
16:30:49 [ERICstephan]
jcheney: did this for a small subset for PROV-DM during f2f2.
16:31:05 [Zakim]
16:31:18 [ERICstephan]
jcheney: Tim has been adding record form from PROV-DM to collections of RDF triples
16:31:22 [ERICstephan]
16:32:08 [zednik_]
zednik_ has joined #prov
16:32:46 [Zakim]
16:32:57 [pgroth]
16:33:25 [dgarijo]
yes, more or less.
16:33:28 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: Is what we see in the doc, in the right hand side of the page reflect the current prov-o ontology?
16:33:45 [tlebo]
@paul, that is the intent. If the RHS are not aligned with the OWL file, ISSUES should be raised.
16:35:02 [ERICstephan]
jcheney: left hand side match DM working draft 3
16:35:26 [pgroth]
16:35:46 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: how do we sync prov-o prov-dm?
16:35:48 [pgroth]
16:36:22 [jcheney]
16:36:22 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: in the issue tracker, make a new deliverable for mappings, if inconsistencies report them there.
16:36:23 [satya]
+1 @Paul
16:36:24 [dgarijo]
16:37:00 [tlebo]
q+ to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
16:37:01 [ERICstephan]
jcheney: making deliverable in tracker, that it makes a separate deliverable in working group? Paulg no
16:37:05 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:37:12 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:37:13 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
16:37:22 [satya]
@Tim: I agree
16:37:37 [ERICstephan]
tlebo: useful and at least interesting to PROV-O html doc
16:37:38 [dgarijo]
+1 to Tim's point.
16:37:55 [pgroth]
16:38:02 [Luc]
16:38:07 [Zakim]
16:38:07 [dgarijo]
If it helped us, it could help other people too...
16:38:12 [pgroth]
ack I hung up
16:38:21 [ERICstephan]
luc: we can close action-56?
16:38:29 [Zakim]
16:38:37 [ERICstephan]
jcheney: +1
16:38:56 [ERICstephan]
satya: action on me is closed?
16:39:05 [pgroth]
Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
16:39:05 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
16:39:10 [satya]
16:39:11 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: action is still open based on action-105
16:39:13 [satya]
16:39:17 [pgroth]
16:39:28 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:39:57 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: okay on deliverable on RDF mappings?
16:40:03 [ERICstephan]
who spoke?
16:40:09 [tlebo]
macted did
16:40:20 [ERICstephan]
MacTed: not sure this is going to meet the goals of harmonization
16:40:44 [tlebo]
@macted, what are you looking for?
16:40:54 [Luc]
16:40:54 [satya]
can you please explain macted?
16:41:02 [jcheney]
16:41:04 [Luc]
16:41:14 [dgarijo]
@satya: I think he is just concerned about the naming
16:41:17 [ERICstephan]
satya: What are you suggesting macted?
16:41:18 [dgarijo]
of the document..
16:41:45 [ERICstephan]
MacTed: harmony does not equate to RDF mapping to me
16:42:08 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:42:41 [pgroth]
Raise Issue against Product 9
16:42:41 [ERICstephan]
luc: posting url to new product I created, to raise issues in the tracker between PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:43:03 [pgroth]
Topic: Timetable for Release
16:43:42 [satya]
@Luc, I just mailed you to close ISSUE-105
16:43:59 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: what should be the goal of the release?
16:44:12 [pgroth]
16:44:14 [pgroth]
16:44:16 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:44:53 [satya]
16:45:21 [Luc]
16:45:24 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:45:38 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:45:42 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: sync one version of working draft against another for ( Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer)
16:45:54 [Zakim]
16:46:20 [ERICstephan]
luc: the whole point was that we change the presentation, simplify, but we do not change any of the terms
16:46:31 [dgarijo]
so then we are already done :D :D
16:46:46 [dgarijo]
@satya: Account is now "bundle"
16:46:47 [ERICstephan]
luc: if you have aligned the prov-o to the current working draft you have aligned them
16:47:14 [Luc]
@Satya, i closed issue-105 and action-52
16:47:29 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: those set of issues need to be addressed before wd4
16:47:41 [ERICstephan]
luc: wd4 March 1
16:48:07 [ERICstephan]
luc: without sync with prov-o
16:49:16 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: when do we do a sync release within the group? reviews this week, two weeks for alignment, propose March 14?
16:49:18 [pgroth]
16:50:00 [pgroth]
Deadline to release internally to the WG for review of primer + dm + ontology sync release March 14
16:50:03 [Zakim]
16:50:32 [pgroth]
16:50:48 [ERICstephan]
luc: what does the prov-o team think?
16:50:56 [satya]
yes, we now concentrate on html
16:51:03 [satya]
16:51:39 [ERICstephan]
satya: On our monday meeting we are already started restructuring HTML, maybe by next Thursday report progress?
16:51:56 [ERICstephan]
satya: maybe 2 weeks time reasonable?
16:51:58 [pgroth]
16:52:40 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: key comments, is raising all issues on the mapping styles and harmonization products, what is remaining to achieve harmonization?
16:52:54 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: I think we should aim for 14th
16:52:58 [pgroth]
16:53:19 [ERICstephan]
luc: concern that we are drifting again on the time table.
16:53:56 [ERICstephan]
luc: We need to Start working on 5th working draft
16:54:31 [ERICstephan]
luc: working in parallel on 5th working draft
16:55:12 [ERICstephan]
luc: finalize timeline next week?
16:55:15 [pgroth]
suggestion March 14, but finalize next week
16:55:21 [ERICstephan]
+1 agree with luc
16:55:26 [pgroth]
16:55:28 [tlebo]
q+ did the content of get moved to another page?
16:56:33 [pgroth]
Topic: Agent Types
16:56:44 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: Tim it stays where its been
16:57:14 [tlebo]
16:57:17 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: agent typings discussion in the mail list
16:57:32 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: concerns about not broad enough use cases
16:57:37 [pgroth]
16:58:03 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: can we get concensus for a vote today?
16:58:08 [Zakim]
16:58:31 [pgroth]
Current: Person, Software Agent, Organization
16:58:50 [pgroth]
Proposal: Change core agent subtypes to Human, System, Organization
16:58:55 [pgroth]
16:59:00 [Curt]
European (Organisation) or American (Organization) spelling?
16:59:18 [pgroth]
16:59:26 [satya]
16:59:26 [MacTed]
+1 to change, with z spelling
16:59:32 [dgarijo]
16:59:51 [tlebo]
-1 b/c organizations are systems
17:00:14 [Luc]
@paul, wasn't it ComputingSystem ?
17:00:17 [dgarijo]
@tim: but they are not all disjoint, right?
17:00:35 [Curt]
+1 Systems can include persons or organizations, but are still distinct from them
17:00:37 [dgarijo]
@tim: so an Organization CAN be a system.
17:01:01 [dgarijo]
I'd say that Human and System are disjoint though.
17:01:21 [stephenc]
Would prov:Human be a subclass of foaf:Person?
17:01:29 [zednik_]
17:01:34 [satya]
17:01:39 [pgroth]
ack zednik
17:01:40 [ERICstephan]
satya: when a human is not regarded in the context of an agent is there a problem?
17:01:44 [tlebo]
abstain. Agent has been hard enough. I'll make my own subtypes.
17:01:56 [dgarijo]
17:02:15 [ERICstephan]
zednik: Why human over person?
17:02:27 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
17:02:45 [ERICstephan]
what if an animal is an agent?
17:03:09 [ERICstephan]
agreed with tlebo
17:03:42 [pgroth]
17:03:42 [zednik_]
17:03:51 [pgroth]
ack zednik_
17:03:52 [MacTed]
thinking deeper.... foaf:Person <> prov:Person, which is clearer if we say prov:Human
17:04:10 [jun]
do we have a use case to drive sub-typing agent? I am against over sub-typing
17:04:10 [MacTed]
prov:Human may be but is not necessarily prov:Agent
17:04:46 [ERICstephan]
zednik: talk about humans without typing them automatically to agent?
17:04:53 [jun]
17:05:00 [MacTed]
prov:Agent might have *range* (as opposed to subClass) which includes foaf:Person, prov:Human, prov:Person...
17:05:02 [pgroth]
ack jun
17:05:08 [tlebo]
+1 to avoiding direct connection to FOAF.
17:05:12 [dgarijo]
@why are you against? If prov is supposed to be a generic ontology, you will have to adapt it to you domain imo
17:05:22 [dgarijo]
17:05:52 [ERICstephan]
jun: what is driving this task?
17:06:12 [satya]
@Jun, +1 - subytping leads to reduced interoperability
17:06:24 [Zakim]
17:06:25 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: We already agreed about these broad categories and wanted to get agreement on naming
17:06:47 [zednik_]
is agent itself enough to address the use cases?
17:06:52 [ERICstephan]
MacTed: What is the distinction?
17:07:17 [Luc]
and originally software ...
17:07:24 [ERICstephan]
MacTed: Human and Inhuman?
17:07:59 [jcheney]
Suggest Nonhuman instead of Inhuman - a human can be inhuman.
17:08:10 [ERICstephan]
link to use case?
17:08:13 [tlebo]
is a foaf:Organization Human or InHuman?
17:08:27 [zednik_]
what attributes are different for human vs nonhuman in prov?
17:08:47 [jun]
@jcheney, +1. if we have to have it, then at least we have nonhuman
17:08:50 [zednik_]
what relations are different for human vs nonhuman?
17:08:53 [satya]
jcheney, tlebo :)
17:09:17 [MacTed]
human vs nonhuman is fine with me ... once I understand why the distinction is necessary here...
17:09:21 [tlebo]
we can kill -9 NonHuman without going to jail
17:09:38 [ERICstephan]
lol tlebo
17:09:41 [pgroth]
17:09:42 [MacTed]
but corporations are people! ;-)
17:09:56 [ERICstephan]
is a cow a system on a dairy farm?
17:10:56 [satya]
I think this is one of our best discussion in the WG :o)
17:11:16 [zednik_]
what is our definition of system?
17:11:22 [pgroth]
17:11:44 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
17:11:59 [pgroth]
17:12:04 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: there is a key use case, it looks like there was naming, but we get on phone call and no consensus.
17:12:37 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: would like to issue this to be done. This is a necessary to have.
17:13:06 [ERICstephan]
pgroth: Will email around again this use case.
17:13:30 [Zakim]
17:13:31 [tlebo]
bye bye!
17:13:32 [Zakim]
17:13:33 [Zakim]
17:13:33 [Zakim]
17:13:34 [zednik_]
17:13:35 [Zakim]
17:13:36 [Zakim]
17:13:36 [Zakim]
17:13:39 [Zakim]
17:13:40 [Zakim]
17:13:40 [Zakim]
17:13:42 [Zakim]
17:13:42 [ERICstephan]
17:13:46 [Zakim]
17:13:48 [Zakim]
- +1.509.967.aaaa
17:13:51 [Zakim]
17:15:05 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:15:11 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:15:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:15:16 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telecon
17:15:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:15:16 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.509.967.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, SamCoppens, Helena, tlebo, dgarijo?, MacTed, Yolanda, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller]
17:15:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:15:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:15:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:15:25 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items