Provenance Working Group Teleconference

10 May 2012


See also: IRC log


Luc Moreau


<trackbot> Date: 10 May 2012

<Luc> Scribe: dgarijo


<Luc> ;-)

<scribe> scribe:dgarijo

<MacTed> Zakim who, who's here?

<Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion?

Zakim is silent today...

Luc: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03

<Luc> proposed: to accept last week's minutes


<smiles> +1

<jcheney> +1

<TomDN> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +0 (wasn't present)

<lebot> "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ?

<jun> +1

<Paolo> where are the minutes?

<GK> e PAQ I think means "the PAQ"

<GK> +1

<Luc> Accepted: last week's minutes

<Paolo> +1

<lebot> +1

Luc: review of actions
... 2 on Satya to announce the documents.
... I believe it is done

Paul: yes it is complete

<pgroth> yes

<pgroth> he did it

Luc: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done

<jun> yes, we got it!

<pgroth> +q

Luc: just a reminder for scribes

Paul: comment on annoucements.

<pgroth> public-prov-wg

<pgroth> public-prov-comments

<jcheney> lots of echos

Paul: We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments.

sandro: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that.

<GK> PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call)

release of document

Luc: release of documents.
... how disemination is going?
... stephan Zednick did something, I believe.

stephan: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey

Luc: thanks


pgroth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement
... 3 responses

Luc: I had 1 response too.
... PAQ

<GK_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html [edit]

<Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft

Luc: release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback?

<Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft

<smiles> +!

<satya> +1

<TomDN> +1

<lebot> +1


<jcheney> +1

<zednik> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Paolo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<GK> +1

<smiles> +1

<Luc> Accepted: to release PAQ as a working draft

all documents

Luc: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master

<pgroth> @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then

Luc: on f2f2 we agreed on a time table
... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for June 1st
... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this.

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6

@Jun thanks.

Luc: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today)
... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do?

<GK> @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week?

james: The constraints haven't been reviewed yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now)
... I reorganized the doc.

<sandro> +Testing

Luc: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers.

tlebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed.

james: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed.

<Luc> Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

Luc: action on tim to review the doc

<Luc> Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot

graham: I'll have a look too

<Luc> Action GK to review latest prov-constraints

<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17].

graham: my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization

<lebot> @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today...

<Luc> Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints

<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17].

Luc: prov-o document

lebot: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues

<Zakim> lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for

smiles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml)
... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ????

<Paolo> ok fine

Luc: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ?

<smiles> @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively

Paul: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week

@smiles, thanks

Luc: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents?
... DC best practices.

Paul: I'll ask offline.

Dgarijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline.

<Zakim> again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review?


<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html

<Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom

Luc: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom?

<stainPhone> I'm struggling with Zakim passcode

any comments?

<Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom


<smiles> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<TomDN> +1

<MacTed> +1

<jcheney> +1

<satya> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<jun> -1

<lebot> -1

<Paolo> +1

<GK> 0

<zednik> 0

<jun> I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me

<sandro> 0

<lebot> if it was a quote, what is it now?

<stainPhone> +1

<stainPhone> Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted"

<pgroth> he has a point

Jun: it was clear for me before
... not convinced by the new name


<stainPhone> Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right?

<zednik> quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb

<lebot> daniel: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips)

<lebot> daniel: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing

<jun> How is that different from wasDerivedFrom?

stian: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too.

<lebot> @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom.

paul: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list.

<lebot> +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it)

<khalidbelhajjame> Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate

<jun> @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology

<stainPhone> I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote

Luc: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list.

<MacTed> "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates

<lebot> yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense")


<jun> @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo

@lebot: isAquoteFrom works for me too...

<lebot> @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency?

<satya> as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense?

<Luc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html

<pgroth> (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd)

<stainPhone> Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ?

@lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear.

<khalidbelhajjame> @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything

<Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly


<jun> @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat

<lebot> daniel: concern is for prov-o and [] wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it.

<stainPhone> I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship

<lebot> @macted, that's where we started months ago (to expand the range)

lebot: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago

<stainPhone> We already had this issue for activity start time only

lebot: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection

stephan: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship

Luc: no

<satya> @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy)

Luc: the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well

<jun> @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM

<Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

<TomDN> +1

<lebot> +1

<stainPhone> +1

<MacTed> +1

<Paolo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<GK> 0

<SamCoppens> +1

+0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it)

<satya> 0

<khalidbelhajjame> +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy

<jun> 0

<sandro> 0

<Luc> Accepted: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly


Luc: collections

pgroth: worried about the length of the section on collections.

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html

pgroth: I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O
... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html

pgroth: Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions
... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break )
... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too?
... any comments on this?

<pgroth> there's a lot of echo

lebot: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section

Luc: do you want to separate the namespace as well.

lebot: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion

<smiles> I agree with everything Tim said

pgroth: namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

<lebot> +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document.

<Paolo> I have already expressed my support for this proposal

<Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?

<pgroth> @TomDN I have no idea

tom: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core?

<lebot> @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ?

<pgroth> it would be a huge debate

<stainPhone> I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well.

<lebot> most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent)

<GK> My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me).  The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge.  The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure.  (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib

Graham: almost everything but the current starting points.
... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up.
... the basic structural properties are very clear
... the issue of core vs extensions came previously

Paolo: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing?
... (dm+ontology+examples)
... or separated documents.

pgroth: editorially, it's a lot of work.

<lebot> -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes!

pgroth: I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments

luc: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships.
... in other technologies, this is not the case.
... I see this as a challenge
... how do we move on?

<TomDN_> @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion.

paul: some consensus aboyt separating collections

<MacTed> I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org. but it would undeniably be a huge effort.

<lebot> @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition.

paul: what do the group the think about the core proposal?

<GK> @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above?

<lebot> @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions.

<smiles> +q

paul: by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote

<GK> It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways.

<TomDN_> (sorry, IRC keeps timing out)

<TomDN_> +q

paul: I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal

tom: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that

<pgroth> this is a major major piece of work

Luc: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing
... I don't want to do that iteratively

<Paolo> Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything

Tom: agreed, specially in this stage of the process.

<khalidbelhajjame> Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering

<lebot> @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents.

<lebot> @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said?

<pgroth> he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document

Luc: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM

GK: yes

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O

Luc: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document.

GK: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure.

james: are we going to commit to this change now?
... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents

<MacTed> I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct. revisions happen. just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout.

Luc: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs.

<satya> sorry have to leave

<khalidbelhajjame> Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer

Paolo: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not.

<Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model

Paolo: the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point
... it is ONE of the possible encodings

<TomDN> readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :)

paul: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week)

luc: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ?

paul: yes
... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written

luc: who would write which proposal?

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F

graham: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm

luc: please use wiki

GK: sure

luc: volunteers for a collection document?
... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended.
... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document.

Paolo: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline

<pgroth> so paolo will do it

<pgroth> :-)

<lebot> Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document.

<lebot> I'll help Paolo :-0

<TomDN> if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well


<Paolo> great Tim, much appreciated

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html

<pgroth> @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK

Luc: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts.

<TomDN> sure

Luc: Tim and GK had comments on accounts
... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance

<GK> I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement?

Luc: relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ
... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list

<pgroth> yes

<Paolo> ack

<lebot> bye!

Luc: good bye

<khalidbelhajjame> bye

<Luc> hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks!

<Luc> trackbot, end telcon

<trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<TomDN> bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email

@Luc, Ok, good bye!

<MacTed> trackbot, end call

<trackbot> Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<MacTed> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/10 16:36:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Jun/June/
Succeeded: s/reviewd/reviewed/
Succeeded: s/workf/works/
Succeeded: s/were/where/
Found Scribe: dgarijo
Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo
Found Scribe: dgarijo
Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Accepted GK GK_ Graham Jun MacTed PROPOSAL Paolo SamCoppens SamCoppens1 TomDN TomDN_ clarity daniel dgarijo https james jcheney joined khalidbelhajjame lebot left luc more narrative paul pgroth proposed prov sandro satya smiles stain stainPhone stephan stephenc stian terms tlebo tom trackbot with zednik
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Curt_Tilmes
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.10
Found Date: 10 May 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]