15:56:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:56:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-irc
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> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08
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> +??P9
16:00:34 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:00:40 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:00:52 <Zakim> +??P26
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> +[IPcaller.a]
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> +sandro
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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
16:03:42 <Curt> +1
16:03:43 <paolo> +1
16:03:44 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:48 <Mike> +1
16:03:49 <tlebo> +1
16:03:50 <GK> +1
16:03:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:04:10 <Zakim> +??P27
16:04:17 <satya> +1
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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
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>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:05:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:05:36 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:05:42 <Zakim> +??P34
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> +[IPcaller.aa]
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 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f3/
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> +??P14
16:08:53 <pgroth> q?
16:09:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:09:03 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:09:08 <pgroth> q?
16:09:16 <pgroth> topic: Prov-o
16:09:20 <GK> That meeting date is Friday and saturday, right?
16:09:24 <pgroth> yes
16:09:24 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08#PROV-O
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Generating_HTML_documentation_of_OWL#PROV-O_Views_in_the_previous_tools
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
16:17:58 <dgarijo> @tlebo: if you need some additional help, please tell me.
16:18:11 <pgroth> q?
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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/274
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> +??P64
16:20:16 <paolo> Luc: important for PROV-o and other "serialisers" to have a frozen PROV-DM
16:20:25 <Luc> q?
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> q?
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> q?
16:22:33 <paolo> GK: current comments sent to list supersede previous ones
16:22:35 <pgroth> q+
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
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> +[IPcaller.aaa]
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> q?
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> q+
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> q?
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> q+
16:31:12 <pgroth> q?
16:31:15 <paolo> GK: not sure -- to be discussed further
16:31:26 <tlebo> q-
16:31:41 <tlebo> q+ to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:31:53 <pgroth> q+
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> q?
16:33:23 <paolo> tlebo: agree
16:33:29 <tlebo> q-
16:33:33 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
16:33:50 <stainPhone> @tlebo +1
16:34:02 <pgroth> q?
16:34:10 <pgroth> q?
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> +1
16:34:52 <Curt> +1
16:34:53 <GK> +1
16:34:53 <paolo> +1
16:34:55 <tlebo> +1
16:34:57 <satya> +1
16:34:57 <Mike> +1
16:34:57 <dgarijo> +1
16:34:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:34:58 <SamCoppens> +1
16:34:58 <smiles> +1
16:35:03 <jcheney> +1
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> q?
16:36:36 <Luc> q+
16:36:37 <paolo> q+
16:36:49 <stainPhone> so wd4 will not be published? or later w/provo wd2 etc?
16:36:53 <Curt> PROV-N
16:36:55 <paolo> Luc: can we find a name for the ASN?
16:36:56 <Curt> ISSUE 273
16:37:13 <pgroth> q?
16:37:14 <stainPhone> something non-abstract! ;)
16:37:20 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:37:43 <paolo> q-
16:37:57 <stainPhone> PROV-N +1
16:37:58 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/273
16:38:03 <tlebo> PROV-N +1
16:38:04 <paolo> proposals so far: PROV-N and "functional notation" 
16:38:11 <zednik> PROV-N +1
16:38:13 <GK> I'm OK with PROV-N.  "functional notation" by analogy with OWL
16:38:21 <pgroth> PROV-0, PROV-DM, PROV-AQ, PROV-Primer
16:38:25 <paolo> PROV-N +1
16:38:43 <pgroth> PROV-N
16:38:43 <GK> (But I'd prefer it as an appendix in part 1)
16:38:50 <dgarijo> PROV-N +1 
16:39:08 <SamCoppens> PROV-N +1
16:39:12 <GK> +0.5 (don't care too much)
16:39:13 <paolo> yep I just voted :-)
16:39:14 <Curt> PROV-N +1
16:39:20 <satya> +1
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> q+
16:40:07 <pgroth> ace paolo
16:40:10 <pgroth> ack paolo
16:40:11 <GK> q+
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> -jun
16:41:32 <Zakim> +??P5
16:41:46 <Zakim> - +1.443.212.aaaa
16:41:48 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
16:41:52 <Paolo_> (back)
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> -sandro
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> q+
16:46:10 <pgroth> q?
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> q?
16:47:14 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:47:16 <stainPhone> q+
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> ok
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> q+
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> -[IPcaller.aaa]
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> -??P5
16:52:14 <Zakim> +??P3
16:52:18 <pgroth> divison
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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> -Satya_Sahoo
16:54:53 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:54:54 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:54:55 <Zakim> -Luc
16:54:56 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:54:56 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:54:57 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:54:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:54:59 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:55:01 <Zakim> -GK
16:55:04 <Zakim> -??P64
16:55:10 <Zakim> - +329331aacc
16:55:11 <stainPhone> imagine used(bZip,x) wasGenBy(bZip, y) used(b,y)
16:55:16 <Zakim> -Paolo_
16:55:17 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:55:17 <Zakim> -??P9
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 http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:55:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:55:52 <RRSAgent> I see no action items