15:43:30 RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:43:30 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-irc 15:43:32 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:43:32 Zakim has joined #prov 15:43:34 Zakim, this will be PROV 15:43:34 Zakim, this will be 15:43:34 ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes 15:43:35 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:43:35 Date: 23 February 2012 15:43:36 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:43:49 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23 15:43:59 Chair: Luc Moreau 15:44:05 Scribe: stain 15:44:20 hi Stian, thanks for volunteering! 15:44:27 rrsagent, make logs public 15:54:29 @macted, any feedback on prov-dm proposed restructuring. Can you share some feedback? 15:56:27 pgroth has joined #prov 15:57:56 Curt has joined #prov 15:58:19 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:58:26 +Curt_Tilmes 15:58:26 Paolo has joined #prov 15:58:30 Helena has joined #prov 15:58:47 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:58:59 +[IPcaller] 15:59:03 +[IPcaller.a] 15:59:12 hi sandro are you on today? 15:59:30 tlebo has joined #prov 15:59:42 Zakim, who is noisy? 15:59:46 +Luc 15:59:53 hi stian, it's all set up, are you ready? 15:59:55 yes 16:00:00 stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Curt_Tilmes (40%), [IPcaller.a] (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Luc (66%) 16:00:02 great, thanks for volunteering 16:00:04 not sure if zakim recognized me, but that's not important 16:00:16 +??P9 16:00:17 ericstephan has joined #prov 16:00:24 stephenc has joined #prov 16:00:28 topic: admin 16:00:36 GK has joined #prov 16:00:43 + +1.315.723.aaaa 16:00:48 paul, should we get f2f2 minutes approved today? 16:01:08 for SIP users: can we connect to zakim@voip.w3.org?? I can't 16:01:14 s/we/you 16:01:22 +[IPcaller.aa] 16:01:24 jun has joined #prov 16:01:54 zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 16:01:55 Luc: Call now starting. 16:02:07 Luc: Review PROV-DM and PROV-O 16:02:22 Luc: release of documents.. if time, we'll look at proposal for binary relations for 5th working draft (of DM?) 16:02:24 PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16 16:02:26 +1 16:02:31 +1 16:02:34 +1 16:02:40 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 16:02:41 +1 16:02:42 jcheney has joined #prov 16:02:43 +1 16:02:50 ABSTAIN - NOT SEEN THEM YET 16:02:51 +1 16:02:52 + +1.509.967.aabb 16:02:59 +q to comment on f2f minutes 16:03:00 satya has joined #prov 16:03:09 q+ to comment on f2f minutes 16:03:18 ACCEPTED: the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16 16:03:21 q? 16:03:54 +??P27 16:03:57 Paul: Just finished the minutes - but we can't do approval now as people have not read it yet 16:03:59 zednik has joined #prov 16:04:00 zakim, ??p27 is me 16:04:10 ... the minutes of the F2F2 16:04:12 +??P25 16:04:16 ... apologies for delay 16:04:26 +??P0 16:04:27 Topic: Review of actions 16:04:35 ack pgroth 16:04:47 q- 16:04:54 Luc: Action-55 was reopened to complete OWL file - this seems now done and can be closed. We'll review it. 16:05:13 Luc: Action on Paul to propose proposal, 16:05:13 +Satya_Sahoo 16:05:17 +[IPcaller.aa] 16:05:20 smiles has joined #prov 16:05:23 -khalidbelhajjame 16:05:27 Paul: Talked about it last week, and to talk about it in two weeks time (ie. next week?) 16:05:29 +jun; got it 16:05:37 is that 2 weeks from today or last week? 16:05:38 q? 16:05:56 pgroth, you wanted to comment on f2f minutes and to comment on f2f minutes 16:06:10 Luc: ACTION-61 to update prov-sem 16:06:37 James: Travelling next week, so will have it done before then, not yet done 16:06:41 +[IPcaller.aaa] 16:06:41 zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 16:06:44 @paul I should be in a position to be a little responsive on PAQ issues next week 16:06:48 ^^.. action on Paul was ACTION-57 16:06:54 +[IPcaller.aaaa] 16:07:02 +[IPcaller.aaaaa] 16:07:02 Luc: ACTION-63 Structure of HTML file for PROV-O document - postponed 16:07:09 TOPIC: PROV-DM Simplification: Reviewer feedback 16:07:35 dgarijo has joined #prov 16:07:40 Luc: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN 16:07:47 Luc: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs 16:07:55 +Sandro 16:07:57 Luc: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda 16:08:00 In agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0415.html - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update 16:08:08 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-DM_Simplification:_Reviewer_feedback 16:08:23 Luc: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers 16:08:30 Luc: perhaps a quick summary from each of them? 16:08:35 SamCoppens has joined #prov 16:08:41 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 16:08:41 Luc: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points 16:08:53 Luc: Tim first 16:09:10 Tim: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns. 16:09:17 Tim: Sent email this morning with detailed comments 16:09:27 Luc: Missed link to that email 16:09:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0416.html 16:09:45 i'll edit the agenda 16:09:46 Eric? 16:10:01 Eric: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective 16:10:05 Daniel? 16:10:13 +??P13 16:10:22 Daniel: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send 16:10:35 Daniel: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me 16:10:41 Daniel: Will send small details in separate emails 16:10:49 +SamCoppens 16:10:50 Luc: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F? 16:11:14 Daniel: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now. 16:11:29 Luc: MacTed? Might not be on call yet 16:11:29 MacTed? 16:11:46 Zakim, ??P13 is probably me 16:11:46 +dgarijo?; got it 16:11:54 -[IPcaller.aaa] 16:12:08 Curt: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well. 16:12:08 zednik has joined #prov 16:12:11 (??) 16:12:17 tlebo has joined #prov 16:12:24 kai_ has joined #prov 16:12:24 Sam: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns 16:12:27 conserns 16:12:44 Sam: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?) 16:12:53 Sam: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send 16:12:55 (back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is http://www.w3.org/mid/995BD58C-DB94-4052-BE85-BE9A271695C0@rpi.edu ) 16:13:02 sam I don't see your email 16:13:05 Sam: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft 16:13:23 zednik_ has joined #prov 16:13:25 Q? 16:13:26 Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc 16:13:27 Jun: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison 16:13:31 q? 16:13:32 SamCoppens: sorry : 16:13:40 @ 16:13:58 Jun: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?) 16:13:59 +[IPcaller.aa] 16:14:14 Jun: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment 16:14:22 Jun: 1) Lack of context and explanation 16:14:34 ... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow 16:14:35 My remark was for Paul 16:14:42 glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-) 16:14:54 ... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance. 16:15:01 ... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting 16:15:09 q? 16:15:11 ... not exchanged in current draft (?) 16:15:19 ... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal. 16:15:41 ... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1 16:15:45 jun which document did you read? 16:15:45 (??) 16:15:58 (I'm very confused) 16:16:06 +Yolanda 16:16:14 YolandaGil has joined #prov 16:16:22 Luc: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview 16:16:26 ^^ Jun: 16:16:38 Jun: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes 16:16:54 Jun: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document 16:17:01 q+ 16:17:10 Jun: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too 16:17:18 ... too early to raise comments on those now? 16:17:24 ... Perhaps focus on something different? 16:17:34 ... Interested in Luc's feedback 16:17:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/ 16:17:51 Luc: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed. 16:18:00 Luc: ^^ is the second working draft 16:18:22 Luc: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft 16:18:26 (is that a different document?) 16:18:38 point of clarification 16:18:40 Luc: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point 16:19:00 Jun: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation 16:19:07 q+ 16:19:16 Luc: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically 16:19:21 q- 16:19:22 scruffy = you forgot to read part II 16:19:29 (I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal) 16:19:30 Luc: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance 16:19:34 +1 curt 16:19:47 Luc: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting. 16:20:01 Jun: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..? 16:20:02 @Jun: yes! 16:20:18 Luc: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document 16:20:23 q? 16:20:28 Luc: We've tried to also simplify the presentation 16:20:36 Paolo? 16:20:47 Paolo: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun.. 16:20:50 @Curt, I like this! 16:21:04 Paolo: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F 16:21:05 q+ 16:21:09 Paolo: simplify what was there 16:21:10 ack paolo 16:21:28 ... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version 16:21:32 ... and use this as a new baseline 16:21:36 ... that is the question. 16:21:58 ... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank 16:22:15 ... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline 16:22:24 ... but then you need to know what the old massive document was 16:22:53 ... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2. 16:23:05 ... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper 16:23:10 q? 16:23:20 ... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use 16:23:30 ... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago 16:23:53 Jun: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document. 16:24:11 Jun: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process 16:24:20 Jun: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work 16:24:28 q? 16:24:36 Paolo: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming. 16:24:47 pgroth: about process.. 16:25:10 pgroth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts 16:25:16 GK? 16:25:20 q? 16:25:23 ack pgr 16:25:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0448.html 16:25:29 GK: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document 16:25:35 GK: posted a brief update ^^ 16:25:47 GK: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction 16:25:55 GK: some comments from my review this morning still apply 16:26:06 GK: but many have been addressed, so I think this is something we can build on 16:26:15 GK: rest of the issues are technical issues 16:26:22 GK: which we'll discuss as we get on with it 16:26:36 Luc: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document 16:26:44 q? 16:26:49 Luc: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved 16:26:58 Luc: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback? 16:27:24 (Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review) 16:27:40 Luc: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3 16:27:52 Luc: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved 16:27:54 Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM 16:28:01 q+ 16:28:02 Luc: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C 16:28:06 q? 16:28:11 Luc: to have that resolution agreed.. 16:28:15 pgroth: is that really the case? 16:28:18 Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document? 16:28:25 q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document? 16:28:32 pgroth: Sandro? 16:28:45 sandro: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen 16:28:51 PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. 16:28:59 sandro: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs? 16:29:14 @curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship 16:29:14 Luc: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM 16:29:18 sandro: yes, that solves that issue 16:29:25 Luc: propose two new names. 16:29:34 sandro: just consider them as new working drafts 16:29:46 Luc: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc 16:29:48 3 URLs = 3 html documents 16:29:50 -[IPcaller.aaaaa] 16:29:53 sandro: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents 16:30:03 q? 16:30:04 Luc: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support? 16:30:08 q- 16:30:09 Paul? 16:30:15 (?) 16:30:17 +[ISI] 16:30:21 GK: Do we need to split it into 3 documents? 16:30:22 -Yolanda 16:30:42 q? 16:30:43 GK: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document? 16:30:45 +q 16:30:51 Luc: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents 16:30:56 +1 to 3 documents 16:30:58 Luc: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter 16:31:07 Luc: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description 16:31:11 Luc: a long document is daunthing 16:31:22 q? 16:31:24 Luc: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents 16:31:26 ack gk 16:31:26 GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document? 16:31:27 q+ 16:31:30 +1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing there relationship clearly 16:31:32 +[IPcaller.aaa] 16:31:32 afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least) 16:31:35 ack pgro 16:31:38 +1 for spliitng 16:31:43 pgroth: also think we should have 3 docs 16:31:45 s/there/their 16:31:46 hang on 16:31:49 ack st 16:32:20 +q 16:32:26 zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me 16:32:26 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 16:32:30 ack pg 16:32:38 stain: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)? 16:32:46 stain: some recommendations do that 16:32:57 PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. 16:33:08 @paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion) 16:33:15 stain: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not 16:33:27 Luc: we can come back to working group if needed 16:33:28 good with me 16:33:31 Luc: Express your support 16:33:33 +1 16:33:33 +1 16:33:33 +1 16:33:34 +1 16:33:35 +1 16:33:35 (or not) 16:33:36 +1 16:33:36 +1 16:33:36 +1+1 16:33:37 +1 16:33:39 +1 16:33:41 +1 16:33:43 +1 16:33:52 +1 16:34:05 ACCEPTED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. 16:34:35 Luc: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft 16:34:49 PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. 16:34:51 Luc: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology 16:34:59 +1 16:35:00 +1 16:35:01 +1 16:35:01 +1 16:35:02 +1 16:35:02 +1 16:35:03 -khalidbelhajjame.a 16:35:05 +1 16:35:05 +1 16:35:05 +1 16:35:06 0 - not read 16:35:06 +1 16:35:06 +1 16:35:14 0 - not read it yet 16:35:21 ACCEPTED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. 16:35:33 +1 16:35:34 (I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now) 16:35:42 q? 16:35:43 Luc: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F? 16:35:45 +q 16:35:46 Luc: can we resolve it? 16:36:02 ack pg 16:36:08 pgroth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first 16:36:09 q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD 16:36:18 pgroth: before we can say we have achived the goal 16:36:26 +q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper" 16:36:28 pgroth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public 16:36:39 GK: resolution that matters is when we release it (?) 16:36:40 ack gk 16:36:40 GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD 16:37:09 Tim: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?) 16:37:16 Tim: others agree with that? 16:37:27 Luc: good point, time to talk about process 16:37:33 +[IPcaller.aaa] 16:37:38 q- 16:37:40 Luc: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker 16:37:46 @tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition? 16:37:48 Luc: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue 16:37:55 q? 16:37:55 Luc: and then debate -> resolve it 16:38:05 ... if so, then I assume we'll work on that 16:38:05 decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed 16:38:12 @gk ?? 16:38:17 Luc: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed? 16:38:33 q+ 16:38:35 Luc: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer 16:38:46 @tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant. 16:38:47 pgroth: set a time limit in the email 16:38:56 ack pg 16:38:57 pgroth: for responses 16:39:09 Topic: PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback 16:39:15 Luc: completes PROV-DM 16:39:20 @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper. 16:39:27 Luc: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo? 16:39:39 @tlebo - i would disagree 16:39:47 Luc: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF 16:39:59 -[ISI] 16:39:59 Paolo: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction 16:40:08 @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II 16:40:16 ... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed 16:40:22 ... others in my email might have been addressed already 16:40:34 ... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?) 16:40:44 ... not seen any reply to my comment yet. 16:40:44 (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!) 16:40:52 ... good alignment 16:40:55 @all, sorry... 16:40:57 Eric? 16:41:10 tlebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :) 16:41:16 ericstephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment? 16:41:24 Luc: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :) 16:41:29 Luc: now moving target.. wait a few days? 16:41:34 stephenc? 16:41:53 stephenc: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping 16:41:55 stephenc: which makes sense 16:42:12 stephenc: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense 16:42:31 stephenc: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply 16:42:42 yes 16:42:44 q? 16:42:48 stephenc: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements 16:42:51 (yes) 16:42:52 -[IPcaller.aaa] 16:42:56 @stian: s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-) 16:43:02 stephenc: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things 16:43:02 @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own. 16:43:22 stephenc: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc. 16:43:37 +[IPcaller.aaa] 16:43:37 stephenc: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?) 16:43:44 q+ 16:44:04 ack st 16:44:22 @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them? 16:44:23 stian: what did you mean? 16:44:35 stephenc: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement 16:44:44 stephenc: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property 16:44:54 stephenc: and then what informed by, used and qualified 16:44:55 q? 16:44:57 @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules 16:45:25 @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology) 16:45:27 @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it? 16:45:36 Stian: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules 16:45:51 stephenc: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties 16:46:01 aren't property chains in owl-rl? 16:46:04 stephenc: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult 16:46:20 q? 16:46:26 My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties 16:46:30 Luc: (?) did you go through OWL? 16:46:44 ?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything 16:46:49 stephenc: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create. 16:46:51 ^^Curt 16:47:09 simon: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer 16:47:34 simon: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all 16:47:38 seemed separated from ontology 16:47:47 Paul? 16:47:55 pgroth: going in right direction 16:48:11 ... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records 16:48:40 ... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation 16:48:48 zakim, mute ??P9 16:48:48 ??P9 should now be muted 16:48:54 ... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM 16:48:57 q? 16:48:59 ... but a good step in right direction 16:49:03 ... in reflecting DM 16:49:21 Luc: any other comments before I give my feedback? 16:49:35 pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!) 16:49:46 Luc: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM 16:49:52 q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul - anyone else's that I should look for? 16:49:59 Luc: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association 16:50:02 generation 16:50:08 @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23 16:50:10 Luc: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly 16:50:11 in the agenda 16:50:28 Luc: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping 16:50:30 @pgroth, thanks. 16:50:31 Luc: I've implemented part of it 16:50:33 Luc: working fine 16:50:48 Luc: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM 16:51:09 Luc: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent 16:51:24 Luc: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice 16:51:38 Luc: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc 16:51:54 Luc: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent 16:52:00 Luc: what are we trying to achieve? 16:52:04 Luc: interoperability concern 16:52:22 Luc: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies 16:52:31 Luc: they may not have all the same notions 16:52:39 Luc: if it is not part of data model 16:52:40 q+ 16:52:52 Luc: every mapping to a technology would include nice features 16:53:03 Luc: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks 16:53:09 q- 16:53:12 Luc: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes 16:53:15 Luc: which would make sense there 16:53:24 Luc: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core 16:53:30 Luc: what are the nice features.. mapping specific 16:53:36 Luc: at the moment, the ontology has both 16:53:38 Luc: mixed together 16:53:57 Luc: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL 16:54:00 Luc: and let users decide 16:54:00 q? 16:54:05 Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO 16:54:11 ack stain 16:55:19 Stian: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split 16:55:35 Luc: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity 16:55:40 Luc: that is allowed by ontology now 16:55:43 Luc: which is not part of DM 16:55:47 q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal 16:55:50 (OK, that's a fair point) 16:55:55 @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different) 16:56:02 ack GK 16:56:02 GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal 16:56:18 GK: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies 16:56:22 q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement 16:56:24 GK: Not sure if comments here prevent that 16:56:45 GK: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another 16:57:08 GK: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability 16:57:08 q+ to make a proposal 16:57:16 ack tlebo 16:57:16 tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement 16:57:33 @Tim, yes Luc sent an email 16:57:35 (yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities) 16:57:38 i think Ivan proposed it 16:57:44 tlebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed? 16:57:57 pgroth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable 16:58:04 pgroth: to increase adoption 16:58:11 pgroth: and there was some census.. and now it's there 16:58:33 pgroth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that 16:58:37 AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems 16:58:48 tlebo: will not raise my concerns here 16:59:18 pgroth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3? 16:59:23 pgroth: a valid consern, but that's my question 16:59:27 q0 16:59:28 q- 16:59:32 Luc: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means? 16:59:39 Luc: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O 16:59:41 Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied. 16:59:42 tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email. 16:59:55 Luc: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity 16:59:58 Luc: that's too much to me 17:00:07 Luc: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible 17:00:10 Luc: too permittive 17:00:19 @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow. 17:00:25 @tlebo +1 17:00:38 @tim +1 17:00:40 Luc: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns 17:00:53 pgroth: what does that mean in terms of process 17:01:03 @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified.. 17:01:08 Luc: notion of time is crucial to data model 17:01:24 Luc: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events 17:01:39 Luc: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time 17:01:45 Luc: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene 17:02:02 Luc: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints? 17:02:08 q? 17:02:17 q+ 17:02:18 (my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"] 17:02:20 @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it. 17:02:29 Luc: but that needs to be addressed 17:02:30 q- 17:02:31 q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL 17:02:31 Satya? 17:02:34 q- 17:02:36 ack satya 17:02:41 q? 17:02:47 Satya: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants? 17:02:50 -[IPcaller] 17:02:53 sorry I can't scribe 17:02:55 lost battery 17:02:58 NEW SCRIBE please 17:03:05 Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document? 17:03:06 I'll scribe 17:03:24 luc: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that 17:03:40 ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned. 17:03:49 satya: we have similar issues with location 17:03:58 ... the domain is everything 17:04:05 OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said. 17:04:05 q+ 17:04:19 ack zednik_ 17:04:20 I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL. TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND 17:04:37 @stephan +1 17:04:44 zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements 17:05:03 ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern 17:05:08 +??P24 17:05:49 Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel 17:06:00 Zakim, ??P24 is me 17:06:01 +stain; got it 17:06:03 Zakim, mute me 17:06:03 stain should now be muted 17:06:11 pgroth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use 17:06:27 @pgroth: is that part of the best practices? 17:06:30 @pgroth +1 17:06:31 I think it makes sense 17:06:42 @pgroth: +1 17:06:45 q? 17:06:59 @dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline 17:07:00 q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development. 17:07:01 luc: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team 17:07:10 @stain: no prob 17:08:14 ...? 17:08:16 q- 17:08:20 Proposed: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints 17:08:20 q+ 17:08:26 :) 17:08:28 ack jcheney 17:09:00 jcheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have? 17:09:04 @paul That's two parts. I fully support 1st part; 2nd part I half support. 17:09:10 If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc. 17:09:22 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation 17:09:24 I think that's ok ;-) GIGO 17:09:29 @Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O 17:09:40 @Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints 17:09:42 luc: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda) 17:09:45 @Curt, Stian: rules 17:09:59 ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance 17:10:19 @curt, or examples? 17:10:50 luc: the solution is go to the email and discuss it. 17:11:11 pgroth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document 17:11:24 q+ 17:11:27 rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale? 17:11:29 ack Luc 17:11:32 we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage 17:11:36 q+ Luc 17:11:41 { ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity } 17:11:43 jcheney: missinterpreting what Luc said. 17:12:01 @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator 17:12:10 exactly 17:12:25 people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL 17:12:27 luc: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM 17:12:30 use it as an RDFS vocabulary 17:12:43 @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ? 17:12:55 @gk, ack. gotcha 17:13:14 jcheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl 17:13:24 A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o 17:13:29 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over) 17:13:50 ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it? 17:13:59 That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html 17:13:59 q 17:14:00 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile 17:14:02 q? 17:14:04 ack Luc 17:14:05 I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information 17:14:15 luc: I don't have a formal ..?.. 17:14:42 ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM 17:14:54 ... I made a suggestion on the email 17:14:55 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF) 17:15:28 ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues 17:15:33 have to go now, apologies 17:15:40 My definition of interoperability above: anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information 17:15:47 ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition 17:16:10 @GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things 17:16:13 pgroth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff 17:16:17 @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL 17:16:33 ... that shouldn't be a blocker 17:16:39 @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability 17:16:42 -[IPcaller.aaa] 17:16:57 ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is 17:17:08 @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means). 17:17:10 ... but we could raise issues 17:17:12 @GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard. 17:17:14 luc: agrees 17:17:28 -??P0 17:17:32 luc: what Tim thinks about this? 17:17:40 -SamCoppens 17:17:49 jcheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough 17:17:50 tlebo: james just said what I wanted to say 17:18:11 @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable? 17:18:15 ---a lot of typiing noise!!-- 17:18:41 @GK: not sure yet... 17:18:41 q? 17:18:42 luc: there have been some recent changes 17:18:47 @GK: thanks! 17:19:12 the ontology has always allowed even :entity1 prov:used :entity2 as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL) 17:19:14 tlebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model 17:19:24 eh// entity and activity 17:19:31 @stian: you are actually right.. 17:19:53 tlebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements 17:20:08 ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns 17:20:39 ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository 17:20:46 q? 17:20:51 luc: it is a very good idea 17:20:55 @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements) 17:20:56 Test cases are good. 17:21:11 pgroth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is 17:21:31 ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going 17:21:53 luc: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback 17:21:58 +[IPcaller] 17:22:10 ... it will be good to see what the response is 17:22:26 Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean? What really matters is can we proceed with this? 17:22:31 ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec 17:22:32 @Luc 17:22:33 +1 17:22:49 pgroth: what's next for that team? 17:22:51 (just blacked out for a minute) 17:23:12 ... can they start working on the doc? 17:23:25 ... solve all the issues of the ontology first? 17:23:39 q? 17:23:40 +q 17:23:42 q+ 17:23:47 -[IPcaller] 17:24:09 I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation 17:24:18 Zakim, unmute me 17:24:18 stain should no longer be muted 17:24:24 ack dgarijo 17:24:26 ack stain 17:24:54 q? 17:24:59 Zakim, mute me 17:24:59 stain should now be muted 17:25:07 what do other reviewers think? 17:25:11 stain: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues 17:25:15 the HTML needs to stop being postponed. 17:25:17 @paul +1 17:25:19 q? 17:25:40 q? 17:25:50 pgroth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point 17:26:20 as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel 17:26:24 ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not 17:27:03 ... issues 64, 262..? 17:27:07 ah ok 17:27:27 253, 262, 263 17:27:30 Alternative definition of interop: any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information. I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN. 17:27:30 +[IPcaller] 17:27:48 proposed: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back 17:27:57 +1 17:27:59 +1 17:28:07 +1 17:28:07 +1 17:28:10 +1 17:28:11 +1 17:28:11 +1 17:28:12 @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression? 17:28:23 q? 17:28:24 bye bye! 17:28:27 pgroth: bye 17:28:29 -[IPcaller.a] 17:28:30 bye! 17:28:30 see ya! 17:28:30 - +1.315.723.aaaa 17:28:31 bye 17:28:32 -??P25 17:28:33 -khalidbelhajjame 17:28:33 -dgarijo? 17:28:34 -stain 17:28:37 -[IPcaller] 17:28:38 @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL 17:28:39 -Curt_Tilmes 17:28:45 -[IPcaller.aaaa] 17:28:46 are you doing the minutes luc? 17:28:47 - +1.509.967.aabb 17:28:49 -Luc 17:28:52 -[IPcaller.aa] 17:28:53 -Satya_Sahoo 17:28:53 Bye. 17:28:57 It would be good if it could be mechanical! 17:28:58 -Sandro 17:29:07 Zakim, make logs public 17:29:07 I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth 17:29:14 @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not 17:29:57 -??P9 17:30:05 rrsagent, make records public 17:30:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:30:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth 17:30:25 trackbot, end telcon 17:30:25 Zakim, list attendees 17:30:25 As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo?, Yolanda, 17:30:28 ... [ISI], stain 17:30:33 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:30:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:30:34 RRSAgent, bye 17:30:34 I see no action items