IRC log of prov on 2012-03-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:56:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:56:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:56:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:56:52 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:56:52 [trackbot]
Date: 08 March 2012
15:56:53 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:56:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:56:56 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:57:05 [pgroth]
15:57:11 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:57:25 [Mike]
Mike has joined #prov
15:57:27 [pgroth]
Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:57:33 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aaaa
15:58:16 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:58:31 [paolo]
paolo has joined #prov
15:59:33 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:00:13 [Zakim]
16:00:34 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:00:40 [Zakim]
16:00:52 [Zakim]
16:01:07 [GK]
Zakim, ??p26 is me
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:01:13 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:31 [tlebo]
zakim, I am aabb
16:01:31 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:02:00 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:02:07 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:02:20 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:26 [Zakim]
16:02:54 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
16:03:18 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
16:03:19 [pgroth]
topic: Admin
16:03:29 [pgroth]
Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon:
16:03:42 [Curt]
16:03:43 [paolo]
16:03:44 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:03:48 [Mike]
16:03:49 [tlebo]
16:03:50 [GK]
16:03:55 [Zakim]
16:04:10 [Zakim]
16:04:17 [satya]
16:04:22 [jun]
zakim, ??P27 is me
16:04:22 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
16:04:39 [pgroth]
Accepted Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon:
16:04:46 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:04:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun
16:04:56 [pgroth]
16:05:27 [Zakim]
16:05:36 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:05:42 [Zakim]
16:05:50 [jcheney]
zakim, ??p34 is me
16:05:50 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:05:53 [paolo]
k action can be closed
16:06:06 [GK]
@paul I guess we'll talk about updating PROV-AQ - I've been focusing my limited efforts this week on reviewing DM updates
16:06:13 [paolo]
daniel's action can be closed
16:06:28 [Zakim]
16:06:39 [christine]
christine has joined #prov
16:06:47 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:06:55 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:07:28 [pgroth]
topic: F2F3
16:07:29 [GK]
Mar !!???? I have Mar 15 and 22
16:08:09 [pgroth]
Please fill poll
16:08:14 [pgroth]
June 22 - 23
16:08:16 [paolo]
pgroth: co-locate with IPAW. should be in US anyways
16:08:26 [Zakim]
16:08:53 [pgroth]
16:09:03 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:09:03 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:09:08 [pgroth]
16:09:16 [pgroth]
topic: Prov-o
16:09:20 [GK]
That meeting date is Friday and saturday, right?
16:09:24 [pgroth]
16:09:24 [tlebo]
16:09:44 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:09:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller.a], jcheney, [IPcaller.aa], dgarijo
16:09:48 [dgarijo]
Sorry to be late. Yes, I've finished my aciton, along with Tim and Mike.
16:09:51 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P21 is me
16:09:51 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
16:09:59 [paolo]
tlebo: owl: processing issues, created new product just for HTML in the tracker
16:10:28 [paolo]
tlebo: changes occurred to OWL onto over the week. free to review
16:10:43 [paolo]
tlebo: changes to OWL have corresp. changes to the RDF pages
16:10:59 [paolo]
tlebo: new comparisons to the coverage overview page available
16:11:23 [paolo]
tlebo: HTML side: new product in tracker. Jun + Khalid presented a proposal for new doc structure
16:11:35 [pgroth]
16:11:38 [paolo]
tlebo: well received during the monday call.
16:11:54 [paolo]
tlebo: journalism example shown, sketch of diagram
16:12:15 [paolo]
tlebo: onto visualization tool to help Khalid and Jun (Daniel?)
16:12:28 [paolo]
tlebo: new page creation mechanism available
16:12:39 [paolo]
tlebo: getting ready to review next iteration
16:12:53 [pgroth]
16:12:55 [paolo]
tlebo: will then assign specific sections of the doc
16:13:11 [Luc]
q+ to ask about html generation tool
16:13:17 [paolo]
pgroth: plan for deciding which automated gen tool to use?
16:13:23 [pgroth]
16:13:26 [Zakim]
+ +329331aacc
16:13:29 [paolo]
tlebo: will emerge from discussion of next iteration
16:13:38 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:13:39 [Zakim]
Luc, you wanted to ask about html generation tool
16:13:45 [dgarijo]
I think that LODE was the most successful
16:14:19 [paolo]
Luc: how about printing requirement
16:14:20 [pgroth]
q+ to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:14:28 [paolo]
tlebo: will be taken into account
16:14:38 [GK]
(Doesn't mean one can't also have a browsable form :)
16:15:00 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:15:00 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:15:10 [dgarijo]
You can browse the different tools at:
16:15:15 [paolo]
pgroth: SW coord meeting says any format we use must be compatible with the W3C prescribed style guide
16:15:26 [pgroth]
16:15:33 [paolo]
tlebo: ok so far, on the todo list for the future
16:16:15 [paolo]
tlebo: simplification & alignment: propose to flatten part of the Involvement hierarchy
16:16:45 [paolo]
tlebo: proposal sent out on Tue. Khalid responded. Will be implemented shortly
16:16:50 [pgroth]
16:16:58 [dgarijo]
I don't object as long as we have the hierarchy on the properties.
16:17:26 [paolo]
pgroth: date for automated version?
16:17:43 [paolo]
tlebo: aggregation of all threads under review by Monday
16:17:44 [pgroth]
16:17:58 [dgarijo]
@tlebo: if you need some additional help, please tell me.
16:18:11 [pgroth]
16:18:17 [paolo]
tlebo: results on next iteration to be available by Tue or Wed
16:18:22 [pgroth]
topic: prov-dm
16:18:33 [Luc]
16:19:10 [paolo]
Luc: all comments grouped last week (Luc and Paolo) as ISSUE-274
16:19:23 [paolo]
Luc: most resolved, rest noted in the current doc
16:19:50 [paolo]
Luc: WD4 work to be frozen so that next set of tech issues can be tackled
16:19:55 [Zakim]
16:20:16 [paolo]
Luc: important for PROV-o and other "serialisers" to have a frozen PROV-DM
16:20:25 [Luc]
16:20:25 [paolo]
Luc: feedback solicited
16:20:31 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:21:05 [GK]
I reviewed DM4 today (up to about middle of section 4); much improved over previous but still some issues - happy to see these considered for DM5.
16:21:19 [GK]
(Just sent comments to list)
16:21:21 [paolo]
Luc: no response from Tim, but know he's been looking into WD4 for PROV-O. ok to move on?
16:21:41 [pgroth]
16:21:45 [paolo]
tlebo: sec. II and III missed so far, but will go with group's decision to Freeze
16:22:32 [pgroth]
16:22:33 [paolo]
GK: current comments sent to list supersede previous ones
16:22:35 [pgroth]
16:23:19 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:23:28 [paolo]
pgroth: happy to freeze, but does that entail updating the RDF if any signatures have changed?
16:24:37 [paolo]
tlebo: discrepancies are automatically detected -- thanks to changes in the PROV-DM markup
16:25:04 [Luc]
16:25:39 [paolo]
Luc: WD4 text on derivation is still the same as WD3. but needs simplification. Link above is a proposal
16:25:43 [Zakim]
16:26:16 [paolo]
Luc: reviewed by Simon and others. Recent comments from GK and Curt taken into account
16:26:19 [GK]
New text is big improvement. I still have some issues with content but happy to see new text as basis of ongoing comments.
16:26:50 [paolo]
Luc: seeking WG approval to incorporate into the editor's draft. and should it go into WD4 or WD5
16:26:51 [pgroth]
16:27:02 [stainPhone]
stainPhone has joined #prov
16:27:22 [paolo]
GK: still some issues, but big improvement. can go forward for discussion
16:27:32 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov
16:28:20 [paolo]
Curt: agree that changes look good. some workflows may have requirements that match the current proposal
16:28:42 [paolo]
Luc: where is this explained? DM part I or primer? seeking advice
16:28:46 [GK]
q+ to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:17 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:29:17 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:25 [paolo]
Curt: suggest to use derivation simply, not tied into the roles and not tied back to gen/usage. These details may not go in part I
16:29:49 [Luc]
16:30:01 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:30:11 [paolo]
GK: the entity-entity derivation can be accomplished by introducing an activity.
16:30:45 [pgroth]
16:30:56 [pgroth]
we have time :-)
16:31:00 [paolo]
Luc: but activities may be unknown, and also may not be known how "source" entities contributed, so a link into the derivation record is needed
16:31:01 [Curt]
q+ could attributes be used to tie that?
16:31:02 [tlebo]
16:31:12 [pgroth]
16:31:15 [paolo]
GK: not sure -- to be discussed further
16:31:26 [tlebo]
16:31:41 [tlebo]
q+ to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:31:53 [pgroth]
16:31:55 [paolo]
Curt: can't role be used
16:32:13 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:32:13 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:32:20 [paolo]
Luc: roles in this case superseded by instances of usage/gen -- so need to be able to refer to those
16:32:39 [paolo]
tlebo: should new defs go in WD4 or WD5
16:32:54 [GK]
q+ to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events? (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:33:06 [paolo]
pgroth: suggest WD4 as it simplifies work on PROV-O, gives it only one derivation to work with
16:33:19 [pgroth]
16:33:23 [paolo]
tlebo: agree
16:33:29 [tlebo]
16:33:33 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:33:50 [stainPhone]
@tlebo +1
16:34:02 [pgroth]
16:34:10 [pgroth]
16:34:24 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:34:24 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events? (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:34:25 [paolo]
GK: please continue discussion on the list. still some confusion
16:34:27 [Luc]
To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 [Luc]
PROPOSED: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 [stainPhone]
yes, how cam tou talk anput usage without the using activity?
16:34:51 [stainPhone]
16:34:52 [Curt]
16:34:53 [GK]
16:34:53 [paolo]
16:34:55 [tlebo]
16:34:57 [satya]
16:34:57 [Mike]
16:34:57 [dgarijo]
16:34:58 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:34:58 [SamCoppens]
16:34:58 [smiles]
16:35:03 [jcheney]
16:35:11 [pgroth]
Accepted: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:35:39 [GK]
I think freezing an editors draft is editor's call
16:36:03 [paolo]
Luc: incorporate proposal for derivation in WD4, then freeze WD4. fixed URL for internal use only
16:36:06 [pgroth]
16:36:36 [Luc]
16:36:37 [paolo]
16:36:49 [stainPhone]
so wd4 will not be published? or later w/provo wd2 etc?
16:36:53 [Curt]
16:36:55 [paolo]
Luc: can we find a name for the ASN?
16:36:56 [Curt]
16:37:13 [pgroth]
16:37:14 [stainPhone]
something non-abstract! ;)
16:37:20 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:37:43 [paolo]
16:37:57 [stainPhone]
16:37:58 [Curt]
16:38:03 [tlebo]
16:38:04 [paolo]
proposals so far: PROV-N and "functional notation"
16:38:11 [zednik]
16:38:13 [GK]
I'm OK with PROV-N. "functional notation" by analogy with OWL
16:38:21 [pgroth]
16:38:25 [paolo]
16:38:43 [pgroth]
16:38:43 [GK]
(But I'd prefer it as an appendix in part 1)
16:38:50 [dgarijo]
16:39:08 [SamCoppens]
16:39:12 [GK]
+0.5 (don't care too much)
16:39:13 [paolo]
yep I just voted :-)
16:39:14 [Curt]
16:39:20 [satya]
16:39:33 [pgroth]
Consensus, to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:47 [GK]
I think most important thing is to update references in the text
16:39:48 [pgroth]
Accepted: to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:57 [paolo]
16:40:07 [pgroth]
ace paolo
16:40:10 [pgroth]
ack paolo
16:40:11 [GK]
16:40:14 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:40:49 [jun]
I'll have to leave
16:41:20 [GK]
Agree: discuss for understanding
16:41:29 [Zakim]
16:41:32 [Zakim]
16:41:46 [Zakim]
- +1.443.212.aaaa
16:41:48 [Paolo_]
Paolo_ has joined #prov
16:41:52 [Paolo_]
16:42:18 [GK]
GK: why is not being able to infer activity an issue in derivation?
16:42:27 [GK]
Luc: (a) reproducibility
16:42:33 [GK]
(b) analysis of traces
16:42:37 [Paolo_]
Luc: issue with analysis with provenance traces
16:42:43 [Paolo_]
(I can resume GK, thanks)
16:43:02 [pgroth]
Zakim, who's load?
16:43:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:05 [Paolo_]
Luc: type of activity important for reproducibility and analysis
16:43:07 [Zakim]
16:43:09 [pgroth]
Zakim, who's loud?
16:43:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:20 [tlebo]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:43:31 [Zakim]
tlebo, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:43:58 [Paolo_]
Luc: details about input bindings into a procedure are only known from the usage records associated with the derivation
16:44:15 [stainPhone]
but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?
16:44:52 [Paolo_]
Luc: practical POV: a given activity may use same entity multiple times, with different roles
16:45:24 [stainPhone]
or is (equivalent of) inprecise-n out now?
16:45:33 [Paolo_]
Luc: formal POV: in the context of OPM there is a need to kow which activity is associated with each derivation, roles allow for some completeness results
16:46:05 [satya]
@GK, agree - derivation is not for incorporating activity information
16:46:06 [satya]
16:46:10 [pgroth]
16:46:22 [Paolo_]
GK: explicit activity expression already allowed this. This E-E derivation useful when that's not available?
16:46:23 [GK]
I understand there;'s a need to express this information, but I thought it was possible through explicit activity/event expressions; entity-entity is for when less info is available?
16:46:58 [khalidbelhajjame]
Usage + Generation does not always allow inferring Derivation
16:47:07 [Paolo_]
Luc: activities are not just function calls, entities can be consumed at any time -- usage does not imply derivation
16:47:09 [pgroth]
16:47:14 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:47:16 [stainPhone]
16:47:28 [GK]
Ah: usage + generation !=> derivation - forgot that.
16:47:51 [Paolo_]
satya: why should usage/generation/roles be brought into a derivation record?
16:48:04 [Paolo_]
satya: we are not trying to make inferences using derivation
16:48:26 [GK]
Stian not hearing you
16:48:29 [khalidbelhajjame]
We didn't hear you Stian
16:48:51 [Paolo_]
stian: (hard to hear)
16:48:53 [stainPhone]
16:48:57 [khalidbelhajjame]
Still breaking Stian
16:48:59 [tlebo]
is it this: but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?
16:49:01 [stainPhone]
ill type, go ahead
16:49:11 [Paolo_]
(I missed it)
16:49:11 [stainPhone]
tlebo, right
16:50:14 [Paolo_]
Luc: @stian example is correct
16:50:30 [Curt]
You could even have e2 derived from e1 in two different ways (two usage roles, if you will) within the same activity
16:50:32 [Paolo_]
Khalid: essentially used imprecise_n derivation
16:50:45 [stainPhone]
that makes srnse. but then you cant refer to those usages and generations?
16:50:59 [pgroth]
16:51:05 [pgroth]
ack stainPhone
16:51:06 [Paolo_]
GK: is there a use case that requires this form of derivation? possibly can be rephrased in terms of the simpler use
16:51:25 [Zakim]
16:51:38 [Paolo_]
Luc: proposal does not involve embedding a generation / usage record into the derivation. just a reference to those records
16:51:40 [tlebo]
@gk, I share your "orthogonalizatiaon" interest, but I view the current definition as a nice way of unifying the (otherwise isoloated) constructs.
16:51:58 [Zakim]
16:52:14 [Zakim]
16:52:18 [pgroth]
16:52:30 [Paolo_]
zakim, ??P3 is me
16:52:30 [Zakim]
+Paolo_; got it
16:52:43 [Paolo_]
Luc: will put an example in the repo for discussion
16:52:44 [pgroth]
16:52:46 [GK]
(I would like to see a use-case that *requires* the complex form of derivation.)
16:53:32 [stainPhone]
if wasDerivedFrom(a,b) wasGenBy(a,x) used(b,x) then you are not guarantee that a was derived through that usage of b
16:53:52 [pgroth]
16:53:55 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:53:59 [GK]
OK, if it's useful, then maybe it can be descrtibed as a syntactic sugaring?
16:54:32 [Paolo_]
pgroth: possibly more than syntactic sugar?
16:54:36 [pgroth]
16:54:39 [satya]
@Stian: yes agree
16:54:40 [GK]
Thanks for letting us air the topic.
16:54:41 [Paolo_]
GK: hopefully the example will reveal that
16:54:52 [Zakim]
16:54:53 [Zakim]
16:54:54 [Zakim]
16:54:55 [Zakim]
16:54:56 [Zakim]
16:54:56 [Zakim]
16:54:57 [Zakim]
16:54:58 [Zakim]
16:54:59 [Zakim]
16:55:01 [Zakim]
16:55:04 [Zakim]
16:55:10 [Zakim]
- +329331aacc
16:55:11 [stainPhone]
imagine used(bZip,x) wasGenBy(bZip, y) used(b,y)
16:55:16 [Zakim]
16:55:17 [Zakim]
16:55:17 [Zakim]
16:55:33 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
16:55:38 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:55:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:55:43 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telecon
16:55:43 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:55:43 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, Curt_Tilmes, GK, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, jcheney, dgarijo,
16:55:46 [Zakim]
... pgroth, +329331aacc, Paolo_
16:55:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:55:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:55:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:55:52 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items