IRC log of prov on 2012-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:46:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:46:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:46:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:46:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:46:21 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:46:21 [trackbot]
Date: 03 May 2012
14:46:22 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:46:22 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:35 [pgroth]
14:46:43 [pgroth]
Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes
14:46:49 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:47:00 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:47:08 [pgroth]
Regrets: Khalid Belhajjame
14:53:01 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
14:53:05 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:13 [Zakim]
+ +49.674.180.aaaa
14:53:17 [Zakim]
14:53:28 [TomDN]
Zakim, mute me
14:53:28 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
14:53:37 [pgroth]
do you hear us?
14:54:09 [TomDN]
I don't hear anyone atm
14:54:39 [TomDN]
problems with the system?
14:54:44 [pgroth]
i don't know
14:54:51 [pgroth]
can you say something?
14:54:55 [TomDN]
Zakim, unmute me
14:54:55 [Zakim]
TomDN should no longer be muted
14:55:18 [pgroth]
i can hear you
14:58:25 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
14:58:44 [Zakim]
14:58:47 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
14:58:53 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:59:24 [Zakim]
14:59:34 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:00:08 [Zakim]
15:00:18 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:01:02 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:03 [stain]
1 sec
15:01:31 [Zakim]
15:01:34 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:01:36 [Zakim]
15:01:39 [Zakim]
15:01:46 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
15:01:49 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:01:51 [stain]
Zakim: one of those is me
15:01:55 [Zakim]
15:02:01 [GK]
zakim, one of those is me :)
15:02:01 [Zakim]
I'm glad that smiley is there, GK
15:02:11 [Zakim]
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:22 [Zakim]
15:02:25 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P44 is probably me
15:02:28 [stain]
Zakim, who is being noisy?
15:02:34 [Zakim]
15:02:38 [Zakim]
15:02:40 [Zakim]
+dgarijo?; got it
15:02:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, stain.
15:02:52 [Zakim]
15:02:53 [dgarijo]
Zakim, who is noisy
15:02:56 [Zakim]
15:02:59 [jun]
zakim, ??P38 is me
15:03:03 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:03:09 [jun]
zakim, ??P10 is me
15:03:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is noisy', dgarijo
15:03:14 [Zakim]
15:03:16 [Zakim]
I already had ??P38 as ??P38, jun
15:03:18 [Zakim]
15:03:20 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:03:24 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [stain]
at some point z knew my number..
15:03:32 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
15:03:34 [GK]
zakim, ??p17 is me (I think)
15:03:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p17 is me (I think)', GK
15:03:38 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
15:03:42 [kai]
zakim, ??P34 is probably me.
15:03:42 [Zakim]
+kai?; got it
15:03:42 [stain]
pgroth: lots to talk about today
15:03:45 [pgroth]
15:03:54 [GK]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +49.674.180.aaaa, TomDN, ??P31, Curt_Tilmes, ??P37, ??P28, tlebo, dgarijo?, ??P39, Satya_Sahoo, Sandro, jun, ??P17, ??P8, kai?
15:04:01 [pgroth]
Minutes of the April 26 2012 Telecon
15:04:05 [dgarijo]
15:04:07 [TomDN]
15:04:07 [stain]
pgroth: Approve minutes?
15:04:08 [GK]
zakim, ??p17 is me
15:04:08 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:04:08 [stain]
15:04:10 [tlebo]
15:04:12 [Paolo]
15:04:15 [Curt]
15:04:20 [kai]
+0 (wasn't there)
15:04:23 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:04:27 [smiles]
15:04:31 [satya]
0 (didn't attend)
15:04:37 [GK]
15:04:37 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.467.aabb
15:04:37 [zednik]
15:04:48 [pgroth]
Approved Minutes of the April 26 2012 Telecon
15:04:49 [Zakim]
15:04:54 [stain]
15:05:01 [MacTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:05:02 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:05:03 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:03 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:05:06 [stain]
pgroth: not reviewing action items now, we'll look at those later
15:05:19 [stain]
pgroth: would hope to get scribes before the day of the telcon!
15:05:23 [pgroth]
Topic: Release of Documents
15:05:57 [stain]
pgroth: all documents available and published now - thanks everyone
15:06:04 [stain]
pgroth: see
15:06:15 [stain]
15:06:16 [stain]
15:06:16 [stain]
15:06:16 [stain]
15:06:17 [stain]
15:06:25 [stain]
pgroth: now, how to announce this and promote this
15:06:42 [stain]
pgroth: action items on announcement of documents
15:06:48 [Zakim]
15:06:54 [stain]
pgroth: one action on pgroth was to make a general blog post - DONE
15:07:08 [stain]
pgroth: one on Jun to prepare a PROV-O blogpost, done with Stian
15:07:09 [jun]
done that with Stian
15:07:11 [JimMcCusker]
JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:07:23 [stain]
pgroth: and last a post around DM
15:07:30 [stain]
Luc: Drafted - will finalize it tonight, finish tomorrow
15:07:41 [stain]
pgroth: wanted to talk a little bit about when we want to publish this together
15:07:53 [stain]
pgroth: we want the overral view and things in order
15:08:03 [stain]
Luc: would assume the other two blog posts were published! Need their URLs..
15:08:16 [stain]
pgroth: I will post PROv-O blog and update its links - share it with you
15:08:20 [pgroth]
15:08:32 [pgroth]
15:08:38 [stain]
pgroth: any questions on the announcements?
15:08:47 [stain]
pgroth: semantic activity news - will also be on w3c main site
15:09:03 [stain]
q+ what about various mailing lists?
15:09:10 [stain]
+q what about various mailing lists?
15:09:13 [stain]
15:09:26 [stain]
Luc: to email various participants
15:09:35 [stain]
pgroth: that's next on the agenda!
15:09:38 [pgroth]
15:10:25 [stain]
Stian: What about various mailing lists like semweb- lifesciences etc
15:10:29 [satya]
I can do W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT
15:10:34 [stain]
pgroth: happy to announce on semantic web mailing list and dagstuhl
15:10:44 [pgroth]
action paul to send to semweb and dagstuhl mailing lists
15:10:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-83 - Send to semweb and dagstuhl mailing lists [on Paul Groth - due 2012-05-10].
15:11:11 [stain]
action satya announce PROV to W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT
15:11:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-84 - Announce PROV to W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-05-10].
15:11:14 [pgroth]
action satay w3c hcls arm and acm sighit
15:11:14 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - satay
15:11:33 [stain]
Satya to wait for pgroth's email and copy from there
15:11:42 [pgroth]
action satya w3c hcls and arm sigit
15:11:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-85 - W3c hcls and arm sigit [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-05-10].
15:12:00 [jun]
15:12:03 [Paolo]
there are project lists -- Wf4Ever, DataONE
15:12:03 [stain]
pgroth: other mailing lists?
15:12:06 [Paolo]
I can do both
15:12:13 [stain]
((?) could not hear you properly )
15:12:18 [pgroth]
action sandro to send to w3c mailing lists
15:12:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-86 - Send to w3c mailing lists [on Sandro Hawke - due 2012-05-10].
15:12:35 [pgroth]
action paolo mail to wf4ever and dataone
15:12:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-87 - Mail to wf4ever and dataone [on Paolo Missier - due 2012-05-10].
15:12:44 [stain]
I can post it in G+ ;)
15:12:45 [jun]
why don't you do that?
15:12:54 [Paolo]
there is still a provenance-challenge list, right?
15:12:55 [GK]
Sandro said he'd notify other RDF WGs within W3C (RDF, SPARQL, etc)
15:13:02 [Paolo]
or is it just us :-)
15:13:03 [GK]
15:13:06 [stain]
@GK thnx
15:13:46 [stain]
pgroth: we've identified people who are interested in the spec, from Connecting taskforce - who is leading that now? Stephan?
15:13:59 [stain]
stephenc: (?) tech list
15:14:10 [stain]
stephenc: a survey, did not think of it as a connection taskforce..
15:14:19 [stain]
pgroth: would they get this already through the mailing lists?
15:14:27 [stain]
stephenc: will send an email to people who said they were interested
15:14:29 [GK] is not test case TF
15:14:31 [pgroth]
action stepenc to send email to stockholders
15:14:31 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - stepenc
15:14:38 [pgroth]
15:14:55 [zednik]
15:14:55 [pgroth]
Topic: PAQ
15:15:00 [GK]
... which is
15:15:13 [stephenc]
@stain - that was zednik, not stephenc
15:15:15 [stain]
is the right URI?
15:15:23 [stain]
GK: no changes since last meeting
15:15:34 [stain]
... feedback from Olaf, happy with changes. No objections on mailing list
15:15:55 [stain]
... lurking in the back are some other issues I've not tracked down, but don't think any blockers
15:16:11 [stain]
pgroth: I've received comments from Luc that needs to be done, but all minor
15:16:17 [stain]
(not minor?)
15:16:30 [stain]
GK: addressed editorial stuff that came up on mailing lists, and a couple of issues mentioned there
15:16:41 [stain]
pgroth: we are in a position that we can release a working draft
15:16:46 [pgroth]
15:16:53 [pgroth]
Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft
15:16:56 [stain]
15:17:16 [Zakim]
15:17:25 [stain]
stain: which url?
15:17:27 [stain]
so that's
15:17:33 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:17:39 [stain]
it claims: "PROV-DM, the PROV data model for provenance (this document),"
15:17:40 [Zakim]
15:17:45 [stain]
GK has last edited /working/prov-aq.html
15:17:52 [GK]
zakim, ??p8 is me
15:17:52 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:17:54 [pgroth]
15:18:04 [stain]
SCRIBE DROPPED OUT - backup scribe please
15:18:21 [smiles]
ok, I'll scribe
15:18:23 [Zakim]
15:18:24 [pgroth]
15:18:25 [stain]
I'm back
15:18:30 [satya]
pgroth: Which is the correct URL?
15:18:31 [Zakim]
15:18:43 [stain]
perhaps we need to sort out which document we are going to release.. ;)
15:19:28 [stain]
GK: need to check this for a couple of minutes, and come back in the chatlog with the right URI
15:19:41 [stain]
@GK in Mercurial, pgroth last edited /paq/ and you edited /paq/working/
15:19:56 [pgroth]
Topic: Dublin Core Best Practice
15:20:04 [stain]
15:20:19 [stain]
Zakim, who is on the call
15:20:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', stain
15:20:19 [dgarijo]
@Kai, do you give the update or shall i?
15:20:31 [kai]
Can you hear me?
15:20:33 [stain]
15:20:34 [pgroth]
15:20:42 [MacTed]
(action wasn't created above... zednik to send email to stockholders [or is that stakeholders?])
15:20:45 [kai]
Daniel, can you jump in?
15:20:51 [TomDN]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:20:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +49.674.180.aaaa, TomDN, ??P31, Curt_Tilmes, ??P37, tlebo, dgarijo?, ??P39, Satya_Sahoo, Sandro, jun, GK, kai?, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed (muted), ??P33, GK.a,
15:20:55 [Zakim]
... ??P11
15:20:55 [GK]
PAQ URI should be
15:20:56 [dgarijo]
15:21:01 [zednik]
@MacTed stakeholders
15:21:15 [stain]
dgarijo: I've been away this week, but catched up with Kai
15:21:15 [MacTed]
action zednik to send email to stakeholders
15:21:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-88 - Send email to stakeholders [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-05-10].
15:21:16 [kai]
15:21:18 [stain]
dgarijo: a small time table
15:21:26 [dgarijo]
15:21:37 [stain]
dgarijo: first, write down mappings we did at dagstuhl (link above)
15:21:52 [stain]
dgarijo: in github so everyone can update and check
15:22:20 [stain]
dgarijo: plan to develop some (?) with mappings we have in wiki page, stage 1 of mapping - the simple statements, but not missing statements from many different dublin core terms
15:22:25 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:22:35 [stain]
dgarijo: SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries
15:22:36 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.674.180.aaaa (37%), dgarijo? (61%)
15:22:46 [stain]
dgarijo: put examples in wiki that can be reviewed - to be done over the next 2 weeks
15:22:56 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute aaaa
15:22:56 [Zakim]
+49.674.180.aaaa should now be muted
15:23:02 [stain]
dgarijo: after Kai has finished Masters' thesis we'll come up with an actual implementation to do it automatically
15:23:10 [MacTed]
sorry -- the echoes are VERY hard to process thru
15:23:14 [stain]
dgarijo: that's all
15:23:20 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute aaaa
15:23:20 [Zakim]
+49.674.180.aaaa should no longer be muted
15:23:30 [kai]
My question is, do we need a text and until when?
15:23:32 [pgroth]
15:23:43 [stain]
pgroth: sounds reasonable plan, any comments?
15:23:49 [kai]
q+ to ask for a deadline for some text.
15:24:01 [MacTed]
Zakim, aaaa is pgroth
15:24:01 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:24:03 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute aaaa
15:24:03 [Zakim]
sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to aaaa
15:24:04 [kai]
u can't hear me unfortunately
15:24:13 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:24:13 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:24:15 [MacTed]
15:24:18 [kai]
For some report text!
15:24:21 [stain]
dgarijo: will there be any deadline for this task?
15:24:25 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:24:25 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:24:27 [kai]
Or is the technical mapping enough?
15:24:43 [stain]
pgroth: no hard deadlines, but really important part of specifications. Typical questions we get lot
15:24:46 [stain]
relations to Dublin Core
15:24:47 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:24:59 [stain]
pgroth: would be good to get an idea of how long it would take you to do something
15:25:10 [stain]
pgroth: I don't know how much you want to spend on this..
15:25:18 [Luc]
when would you like to release something internally, for us to review?
15:25:24 [GK]
Audio is cutting in and out - is it just me?
15:25:27 [stain]
pgroth: we should be at a good state to talk about this for the F2F #3 in June
15:25:30 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:25:30 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:25:33 [stain]
but what is your time frame?
15:25:36 [kai]
Ok, then we focus on the technical mapping and I assume that we document it afterwards.
15:25:43 [stain]
dgarijo: will try to have something for review as soon as possible
15:25:43 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:25:43 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:25:51 [pgroth]
15:25:52 [kai]
Technical mapping should be available end of June.
15:25:53 [pgroth]
ack kai
15:25:53 [Zakim]
kai, you wanted to ask for a deadline for some text.
15:26:22 [stain]
pgroth: question: Do you think, github as a place to manage these drafts.. because of need to work with dublin core people?
15:26:22 [kai]
15:26:31 [stain]
dgarijo: yes, a place where we can all edit the wiki
15:26:45 [kai]
But we will make sure to transfer everything to W3C
15:26:50 [Zakim]
15:26:52 [stain]
?: Michael X to edit it, he's not in the W3C
15:27:06 [stain]
?2: can we add him as an invited expert to the group?
15:27:08 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:27:08 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:27:10 [dgarijo]
Michael Panzer (he was in the incubator)
15:27:11 [stain]
agreements on copyright, etc
15:27:14 [Zakim]
15:27:22 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:27:22 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:27:26 [MacTed]
+1 IE invitation -- IPR, editing version history is preserved, etc.
15:27:28 [stain]
would avoid any intellectual property issues
15:27:34 [stain]
who was last speaker?
15:27:37 [kai]
Of course
15:27:40 [jun]
test test
15:27:49 [tlebo]
@stian, sandro
15:27:51 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:27:51 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:27:57 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:28:00 [stain]
sandro: not particularly unusual to join for such a reason
15:28:05 [Zakim]
15:28:06 [stain]
^^ ?2 is sandro
15:28:08 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:28:08 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:28:31 [stain]
pgroth: would be best to keep contributions on w3c site for Intellectual property reasons
15:28:32 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:28:32 [dgarijo]
ok, thanks.
15:28:40 [stain]
(action on ? to invite?)
15:28:45 [Zakim]
15:28:51 [GK]
I seem to be having problems with audio, chat and w3c wiki access... problems with MIT network?
15:28:53 [pgroth]
Topic: Definition of Alternate and Specialization
15:29:05 [pgroth]
15:29:09 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:29:16 [stain]
AGREED to invite Michael Panzer as invited expert
15:29:23 [stain]
pgroth: we wanted a vote on that
15:29:26 [GK_]
GK_ has joined #prov
15:29:40 [stain]
pgroth: two options.. one is to include definitions as they stand in DM, and close issue
15:29:46 [stain]
pgroth: wrappijng it all up
15:29:52 [stain]
pgroth: option 2 - drop the definitions
15:29:52 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:30:03 [pgroth]
15:30:06 [GK_]
I'm not seeing chat on IRC ..
15:30:11 [pgroth]
15:30:21 [GK_]
.. only on web ... ah it's back aginb
15:30:25 [pgroth]
15:30:27 [stain]
any questions? No..
15:30:41 [stain]
pgroth: go to vote on option 1
15:30:47 [JimMcCusker]
15:30:47 [pgroth]
Option 1: Include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization
15:30:54 [TomDN]
15:30:54 [Curt]
15:30:55 [Paolo]
15:30:56 [stain]
15:30:57 [stephenc]
15:30:57 [tlebo]
15:30:59 [stain]
15:31:01 [smiles]
15:31:03 [zednik]
15:31:06 [jcheney]
15:31:07 [MacTed]
15:31:08 [jun]
15:31:13 [Luc]
PROPOSED: Option 1: Include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization
15:31:15 [satya]
15:31:35 [GK]
+0 (not wild about having to escape URIs)
15:31:36 [Luc]
15:31:42 [GK]
.. (but not objecting)
15:31:43 [kai]
15:31:55 [stain]
for reference:
15:31:55 [stain]
* An entity is a physical, digital, conceptual, or other kind of thing with some fixed aspects. Entities may be real or imaginary
15:31:58 [stain]
* Two alternate entities present aspects of the same thing. These aspects may be the same or different, and the alternate entities may or may not overlap in time
15:32:01 [stain]
* An entity that is a specialization of another entity shares all aspects of the latter, and additionally presents more specific aspects of the same thing as the latter. In particular, the lifetime of the specialized entity contains that of any specialization
15:32:21 [pgroth]
Approved: Option 1 include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization
15:32:31 [stain]
pgroth: thanks, now we can consider option 2!
15:32:34 [stain]
15:32:38 [pgroth]
Topic: Responsibility
15:33:01 [stain]
Luc to give an overview of what to do about responsibility
15:33:06 [stain]
Luc: in DM we have a component on Derivation
15:33:20 [stain]
Luc: that has got wasDerivedFrom and 3 sub-types (more or less)
15:33:30 [stain]
Luc: and separate component on Agent and Responsibility
15:33:42 [stain]
Luc: but they are not all orthagonal - some derivation relations that refer to agents
15:33:52 [pgroth]
15:33:54 [stain]
Luc: an agent that is responsible for making the revision
15:34:03 [stain]
Luc: or an agent that is doing the quote, who produced the original entity
15:34:10 [stain]
Luc: some discussion on mailing list
15:34:26 [stain]
Luc: for simplicitation, it would be good to make derivation independent of agents/responsibility
15:34:37 [Luc]
PROPOSED: drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.
15:34:50 [dgarijo]
15:35:09 [stain]
Luc: but if you really want to express responsibility? Then you would use attribution in addition to say the wasrevisionof relation
15:35:15 [stain]
Luc: would simplify both model and ontology
15:35:23 [pgroth]
15:35:23 [Curt]
15:35:31 [stain]
15:35:51 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:36:16 [dgarijo]
Stian: so we no longer have hadQuoter and hadQuotee?
15:36:24 [dgarijo]
Luc: no
15:36:59 [stain]
Luc: so you would attribution instead
15:37:02 [dgarijo]
Luc: Instead of having quoter you could use attribution
15:37:09 [TomDN]
+1 seems more elegant, and also fits better when asserting what we used to call "imprecise" provenance
15:37:38 [zednik]
15:37:50 [MacTed]
is there a link to the segment being discussed?
15:38:01 [TomDN]
15:38:04 [Luc]
15:38:08 [MacTed]
I'm having a TERRIBLE time parsing speakers who are not in the room with the speakerphone.
15:38:27 [pgroth]
zakim, mute pgroth
15:38:27 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:38:32 [stain]
people would then write wasQuoteOf(theSentence, romeoAndJuliet) wasAttributedTo(theSentence, Shakespeare) as opposed to wasAttributedTo(theSentence, guyWhoMadeTheQuote)
15:38:48 [stain]
but we could add roles for quoter and quotee
15:38:49 [stain]
15:38:53 [pgroth]
zakim, unmute pgroth
15:38:53 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:38:58 [stain]
pgroth: any other implications?
15:39:26 [Curt]
revision/quote are simply between entities instead of agents.. You can always figure out the agents from the attribution.
15:39:33 [pgroth]
15:39:36 [stain]
Luc: on the examples.. they can all be expressed by the proposed changes
15:39:38 [tlebo]
+1 to proposal, hadQuoter can be modeled with Attribution with role "quoter"
15:39:45 [stain]
Luc: in issue 368
15:39:52 [stain]
(we can't resolve it as w3c is flaky)
15:40:09 [stain]
Google Chrome could not connect to (!!)
15:40:20 [pgroth]
zakim, mute pgroth
15:40:20 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:40:37 [pgroth]
zakim, umute pgroth
15:40:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute pgroth', pgroth
15:40:38 [stain]
In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.
15:40:41 [stain]
Instead of wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,ag,attrs)
15:40:43 [stain]
we should write wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,attrs) and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag)
15:40:46 [stain]
Instead of wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs)
15:40:47 [stain]
we should write: wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,attrs) and wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1) and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2)
15:40:57 [stain]
(from Luc's email on ISSUE-368)
15:41:06 [pgroth]
PROPOSED: drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.
15:41:17 [Paolo]
15:41:19 [MacTed]
+1 as proposed on (which is not the same as "drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.")
15:41:21 [stain]
I've not got any sound.. are anyone talking? Last one was "I got the implications now"
15:41:24 [TomDN]
15:41:33 [sandro]
Luc ?
15:41:33 [Luc]
can you hear us?
15:41:33 [GK]
In the issue, I assume e1, e2 are entities?
15:41:35 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:41:36 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:41:36 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:41:37 [dgarijo]
15:41:39 [TomDN]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:41:39 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:41:41 [sandro]
cant hear you luc
15:41:42 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:41:45 [tlebo]
+1 to proposal, since hadQuoter can be modeled with Attribution with role "quoter"
15:41:45 [dgarijo]
15:41:58 [stain]
Luc and pgroth are on the same phone
15:42:07 [jcheney]
Speakerphone is causing everyone else to echo.
15:42:08 [stain]
@tlebo agree
15:42:33 [stain]
?: Agree with text in ISSUE, but not on proposal
15:42:40 [tlebo]
@stian, MacTed
15:42:41 [Luc]
PROPOSED: agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.
15:42:46 [MacTed]
15:43:00 [kai]
@GK: same here
15:43:01 [stain]
can we not say 'as in ISSUE-368' ?
15:43:18 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: adopt changes as put forth in drop
15:43:31 [stain]
ISSUE-368 can be changed, so we need to state explicitly
15:43:44 [stain]
Vote now please
15:43:44 [MacTed]
s/in drop/in/
15:43:44 [smiles]
15:43:45 [TomDN]
15:43:45 [stain]
15:43:46 [MacTed]
15:43:47 [satya]
15:43:48 [jcheney]
15:43:49 [jun]
15:43:49 [sandro]
15:43:51 [GK]
15:43:53 [zednik]
15:43:54 [dgarijo]
15:43:56 [Paolo]
15:43:56 [tlebo]
15:43:59 [kai]
15:44:08 [Curt]
15:44:12 [sandro]
quoting that issue page, for the record:
15:44:13 [pgroth]
Accepted: adopt changes as put forth in drop
15:44:14 [sandro]
In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.
15:44:14 [sandro]
Instead of
15:44:14 [sandro]
15:44:14 [sandro]
we should write
15:44:14 [sandro]
15:44:17 [sandro]
and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag)
15:44:19 [sandro]
Instead of
15:44:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:44:20 [sandro]
15:44:20 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:44:22 [sandro]
we should write:
15:44:24 [sandro]
15:44:26 [sandro]
and wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1)
15:44:28 [sandro]
and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2)
15:44:31 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV Notation Optional Identifiers Syntax
15:44:31 [GK_]
GK_ has joined #prov
15:44:32 [sandro]
We are not losing in expressivity, I believe, instead, we decouple components 2 and 3 in the data model.
15:44:48 [stain]
pgroth: PROV-N editors to summarize for us..?
15:44:58 [stain]
jcheney raised the issue
15:45:01 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:45:01 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:45:14 [jcheney]
15:45:18 [stain]
jcheney: alternative proposals on this page
15:45:35 [stain]
jcheney: some relations in PROV-N are... (?)
15:45:40 [stain]
vox dead?
15:45:48 [Zakim]
15:45:50 [stain]
15:46:21 [Luc]
jcheney: prov-n notation difficult to parse for humans who have not studied the grammar
15:46:37 [GK]
jcheney: in some cases, exp[ressions are hard to parse when some optional arguments are missing
15:46:53 [Luc]
jcheney: in particular, for relations that takes an optional first identifier
15:47:29 [GK]
jcheney - prefer option 1 as its more similar to current syntax
15:47:50 [stain]
why does current syntax matter if we are proposing a solution for people who don't know syntax?
15:48:02 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:48:02 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:48:03 [MacTed]
15:48:09 [zednik]
15:48:11 [Zakim]
15:48:17 [stain]
I' can scribe again
15:48:18 [Paolo]
15:48:21 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:48:21 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:48:52 [stain]
Luc: not to make a change on PROV-N too often as we need to go through all the documents!
15:49:01 [pgroth]
15:49:09 [stain]
jcheney: At least if we make a simple change, then.. (?)
15:49:18 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:49:18 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:49:25 [stain]
MacTed: made a comment on this in my review of PROV-O (?)
15:49:51 [stain]
MacTed: on optional values, when they are not easilbly determinable, you need to put blanks all the time - no matter if it's comma or semicolon
15:50:08 [stain]
MacTed: I would stay with comma as it is, but suggest that every expression would have at least a comma or space and a comma
15:50:10 [Luc]
but we allow -
15:50:28 [pgroth]
15:50:28 [stain]
MacTed: so you would need ,, to say which optional things are left out
15:50:44 [stain]
jcheney: other things that seem ambigious.. namely sometimes two-three other optional arguments
15:50:53 [stain]
jcheney: this proposal is only adressing identifer being optional
15:50:58 [Paolo]
15:51:13 [stain]
MacTed: just adressing identifiers is not going far enough, it should be for all optionals
15:51:21 [stain]
jcheney: other proposals would give more owkr
15:51:22 [stain]
15:51:23 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
15:51:40 [pgroth]
paolo go ahead
15:51:49 [stain]
jcheney: question now is to decrease the ambigioutity, and then think about further ambigiuoty
15:51:58 [stain]
jcheney: if there's a ; - then first argument before ; is the identifier
15:52:22 [stain]
jcheney: other ways have been discussed - not saying it's the only way, but it's the smallest change
15:52:35 [stain]
MacTed: as it's not the only problem, w hy not address the whole problem?
15:52:45 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:52:45 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:52:51 [stain]
jcheney: not deciding on how to put these as proposals
15:52:52 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:52:52 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:53:11 [stain]
Paolo: the main reason why this was brought up is that several people spotted it was difficult to parse arguments with multiple optionals
15:53:21 [Luc]
I believe all james suggestions are already implemented or become implementable, if we have a syntactic marker for optional identifier (such as ;)
15:53:35 [stain]
Paolo: identifier is odd in taht it can be optional and left out totally, while the others hate placeholder -, except the attributes that are last
15:53:47 [Luc]
I believe all james suggestions are already implemented or become implementable, if we have a syntactic marker for optional identifier (such as ';' )
15:53:55 [stain]
Paolo: rational was that because identifers are expected to be used barely - so a placeholder fo rthem all the time is too verbose
15:54:02 [jcheney]
@MacTed: here is the full proposal I suggested:
15:54:10 [jcheney]
... the three parts are orthogonal
15:54:32 [stain]
Paolo: trying to retain readability - like if there's not a semicolon then there's no identifier, and other missing optionals expressed using -
15:54:40 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:54:40 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:54:40 [GK]
Based on what Paolo says, no other changes would be needed ... or am I missing something?
15:54:52 [Luc]
15:54:55 [Paolo]
@GK yes that's my implication, too
15:55:00 [satya]
@GK, agree
15:55:09 [stain]
@GK that's right, I think Luc has checked that everything else uses - for intermediate optionals in examples
15:55:22 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:55:37 [stain]
?: will we comprehend the full implications if we do it one by one
15:55:40 [stain]
15:55:43 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:55:47 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:56:06 [stain]
Luc: jcheney listed another suggestion.. one was .. to see if there was an optional identifier or not
15:56:18 [stain]
Luc: once that is in place, there are a few tweaks that can be implemented
15:56:31 [stain]
Luc: all suggestions by jcheney will be supported (??)
15:56:53 [stain]
Luc: a lot of work to.. want to have guidance if it's the right step
15:57:08 [Zakim]
15:57:10 [stain]
Luc: to take the optional id with semicolon - parsers that check this.. time consuming
15:57:15 [tlebo]
isn't prov-n for human readability?
15:57:16 [stain]
Luc: if we know we don't want a certain notation
15:57:31 [Paolo]
@Luc +1
15:57:34 [jcheney]
15:57:45 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:57:45 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:57:50 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
15:57:51 [stain]
I'm not sure what Luc is proposing - implement ALL of the proposals??
15:58:13 [tlebo]
+1 for that semicolon, acknowledging that it's not a "complete solution", as @macted points out.
15:58:14 [stain]
jcheney: is the idea now to propose one of these, or see if it's something we want to do in principle
15:58:37 [stain]
jcheney: would you be happier if the proposal was not binding, but just start with this design decission, then a few others, and form a complete proposal?
15:58:44 [stain]
MacTed: not able to see what the real question is
15:59:04 [stain]
MacTed: if question is - do we need to deal specifally with optional identifiers - then if ; is OK is a second question
15:59:13 [Paolo]
15:59:13 [stain]
MacTed: how do we deal with optionals anywhere is a different question
15:59:18 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
15:59:18 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
15:59:19 [stain]
MacTed: not just for identifier
15:59:25 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:59:28 [stain]
jcheney: this is strictly for optional identifier
15:59:32 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
15:59:32 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
15:59:49 [stain]
Paolo: my understanding is that the issue of identifiers separately, then everything else falls in place and no more need to do anything
15:59:52 [Curt]
The optional identifier is special. Almost everything allows them, but they are quite frequently not required.
15:59:59 [stain]
Paolo: the sooner we get a stable syntax, the better, tools are being made
16:00:11 [stain]
Paolo: as far as I see there is no more work
16:00:14 [Curt]
Quite frequently not needed by a particular application/use case I mean.
16:00:25 [stain]
MacTed: then the other notations I would try to make sense of in PROV-O (?) would not..(?)
16:00:45 [tlebo]
@macted, prov-n is used in prov-o ?
16:00:50 [stain]
MacTed: no, Prov-N is used to understand PROv-O (??)
16:00:51 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
16:00:51 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
16:00:55 [stain]
MacTed: there are too many optional things
16:00:57 [pgroth]
16:01:03 [stain]
MacTed: doing something about identifiers does not solve anything
16:01:05 [Luc]
@macted, i don't understand what you said
16:01:10 [tlebo]
q+ to ask Macted for a URL to this prov-o that uses prov-n
16:01:16 [stain]
@MacTed how is PROV-O using PROV-N?
16:01:23 [Luc]
@macted, i don't understand how prov-n impacts prov-o
16:01:23 [jcheney]
@MacTed: Please read this:
16:01:27 [stain]
MacTed: adressing all optional things would also address identifiers
16:01:27 [Luc]
16:01:46 [stain]
tlebo: confused by MacTed claiming PROV-N is used by PROV-O
16:02:06 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:02:06 [tlebo]
*PROV-N is used to describe PROV-O
16:02:07 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask Macted for a URL to this prov-o that uses prov-n
16:02:16 [tlebo]
16:02:17 [satya]
peraps referring to our dm to RDF mapping wiki page?
16:02:28 [Paolo]
well I guess it's the DM which specifies the optionals, and that is what impacts PROV-O?
16:02:41 [satya]
16:02:41 [stain]
@Paolo yes
16:02:51 [stain]
@Paolo but syntax and order, not
16:02:54 [Paolo]
so I understand that the issue is not PROV-N after all
16:03:11 [Paolo]
I mean MacTed's issue
16:03:36 [Paolo]
is about PROV-DM, not PROV-N
16:03:46 [stain]
I think MacTed should raise a separate issue if he has a problem relating PROV-O/PROV-N
16:04:15 [stain]
MacTed: tere are other optionals, not just identifier. If every optional has placeholder, I don't see need for the special thing on identifier
16:04:23 [Luc]
16:04:34 [stain]
MacTed: easiest solution is to make identifier the last argument
16:04:35 [stain]
16:04:40 [Luc]
16:04:47 [satya]
@mac, agree, I think that will work better
16:04:50 [stain]
Luc: we want to express simple things easily
16:04:54 [Luc]
16:05:06 [Luc]
16:05:08 [stain]
and because of {attrs} it's easy to parse the argument after
16:05:19 [Luc]
16:05:22 [stain]
Luc: .. or we may just keep identifier on some of them
16:05:26 [Paolo]
@MacTed we are actually using the the "last argument omitted" rule for optional attributes already...
16:05:30 [tlebo]
@mac, I disagree, the intent for prov-n is for Humans to read, the identifier (if there) is the SUBJECT of the assertion (and thus belongs in the beginning).
16:05:41 [jcheney]
i.e. don't want to say wasDerivedFrom(-,e1,e2) when id is missing.
16:05:46 [stain]
Luc: Rule is we got some mandatory arguments, like e1, e2, the others are optional.
16:05:57 [Luc]
16:06:00 [stain]
Luc: if the remaining optional arguments are not expressed, nothing needs to be written, like above
16:06:15 [stain]
Luc: otherwise, we do like suggested, with a placeholder for optional argument not there.
16:06:26 [stain]
Luc: but to handle the first optional (the identifier) differently
16:06:28 [Zakim]
16:06:30 [kai]
Have to leave soon, too. FWIW, I prefer to externalize the ID, seems most intuitive to me for all people but LISPians.
16:06:39 [satya]
the id is for "wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2)" so it should be "id(wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2))"
16:07:07 [stain]
not just inside..
16:07:16 [Luc]
@satya, we don't identify a description but a derivation!
16:07:17 [Paolo]
@kai and but logic programmers as well :-)
16:07:24 [stain]
so something like wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2) : id or id: wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2)
16:07:36 [satya]
@stain, exactly
16:07:46 [stain]
pgroth: suggest for now to send around page again and gather more suggestions
16:07:50 [stain]
16:07:55 [kai]
@paolo: right. And indeed I don't like it for the entity statement, as there an ID is needed, IMHO.
16:07:56 [stain]
vote next week
16:07:57 [satya]
@luc, yes the id for the assertion about the derivation
16:08:04 [stain]
it seems like there won't be progress on PROV-N until this is sorted
16:08:09 [Paolo]
@satya, stian: please go through the wiki page, similar proposals to yours are there
16:08:10 [Luc]
16:08:17 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:08:20 [kai]
@paolo: maybe a compromise, externalize it only if it is optional?
16:08:32 [stain]
Luc: would not want to delay this, we want to do a revised draft in 4 weeks time
16:08:40 [stain]
Luc: delay by 1 week is..
16:08:45 [satya]
@paolo, yes I agree with the proposals - I was just trying to clarify the issues from Mac's statement
16:08:48 [Paolo]
@kai ID /is/ optional!
16:08:48 [stain]
Luc: putting those drafts in danger
16:09:03 [kai]
@paolo: also for entity?
16:09:14 [stain]
is there an id for the entity record? (bomb shell!)
16:09:25 [tlebo]
@stian, no.
16:09:36 [stain]
jcheney: sounds like we can say go ahead with this, without having to decide.. (?)
16:09:40 [stain]
MacTed agrees
16:09:49 [jcheney]
that wasn't me! (sandrio, I think)
16:09:55 [stain]
16:10:00 [kai]
@paolo: From the wiki: e AS entity(attrs). Makes entity(attrs) sense without e, i.e., the ID?
16:10:17 [Paolo]
@kai yes it's the ID /of the relation/ we are talking about
16:10:26 [Paolo]
not of the entity
16:10:34 [jcheney]
16:10:34 [stain]
pgroth: what about just using the semicolon as suggested, about making other things optional is about readability
16:10:37 [MacTed]
16:10:39 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:10:43 [jcheney]
16:10:49 [tlebo]
+1 semicolon
16:10:49 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute pgroth
16:10:49 [Zakim]
pgroth should now be muted
16:10:53 [kai]
@paolo. ok. then I prefer externalization even more, to avoid that confusion
16:11:05 [Paolo]
@kai that seems wrong! I'll check the wiki
16:11:08 [stain]
jcheney: as pointed out there are other ambiguoities, listed on wiki page above
16:11:12 [kai]
@paolo: not the first time that I confused that, sorry. But maybe this also is a point.
16:11:14 [stain]
... believe not many have looked at it
16:11:36 [tlebo]
externalization is a scary slope - it looks like an identifier for the record itself (and it's not)
16:11:43 [stain]
jcheney: will look at the other comments and revise this proposal
16:11:45 [Paolo]
@kai agreed -- simple rule is, if we are confused, everyone else will be
16:12:09 [stain]
@tlebo yeah
16:12:18 [stain]
Page is difficult to understand
16:12:36 [stain]
the optional syntax page
16:12:38 [MacTed] would be easier to comprehend as a table
16:12:48 [kai]
Have to leave, sorry. Bye
16:12:56 [pgroth]
Zakim, unmute pgroth
16:12:56 [Zakim]
pgroth should no longer be muted
16:13:04 [stain]
(I'll reallyt have to go soon too.. any backup scribes?)
16:13:07 [Zakim]
16:13:22 [dgarijo]
@Stian I can continue
16:13:30 [stain]
thanks, take over
16:13:35 [Zakim]
16:13:41 [tlebo]
scribe: dgarigo
16:13:52 [tlebo]
scribe: dgarijo
16:14:09 [satya]
@pgroth, +1
16:14:10 [dgarijo]
pgroth: that would be a good finish product that we can look as a whole
16:14:27 [dgarijo]
.... which is what we are aiming for.
16:14:29 [tlebo]
16:14:31 [dgarijo]
... goodbye!
16:14:34 [Zakim]
16:14:36 [Zakim]
16:14:36 [Zakim]
16:14:36 [Zakim]
16:14:36 [Zakim]
- +44.131.467.aabb
16:14:39 [Zakim]
16:14:41 [Zakim]
16:14:42 [Zakim]
16:14:44 [Zakim]
16:14:46 [Zakim]
16:14:48 [Zakim]
16:14:51 [Zakim]
16:14:55 [Zakim]
16:15:00 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
16:15:10 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:15:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:15:14 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
16:17:21 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:17:21 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +49.674.180.aaaa, TomDN, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Satya_Sahoo, dgarijo?, Sandro, jun, kai?, GK, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, pgroth
16:17:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:17:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot