14:48:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:48:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc
14:48:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:48:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:48:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:48:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:48:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:48:40 <trackbot> Date: 07 June 2012
14:48:44 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:48:44 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:02 <pgroth> Agenda:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.06.07
14:49:13 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:17 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:49:35 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Daniel Garijo
14:49:55 <pgroth> I need a scribe
14:49:59 <pgroth> anyone?
14:50:34 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:50:41 <Zakim> +??P5
14:51:56 <pgroth> scribe anyone?
14:54:31 <Zakim> +TomDN
14:54:36 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
14:54:48 <pgroth> tom can you scribe?
14:55:01 <TomDN> noone signed up?
14:55:05 <TomDN> sure
14:55:09 <pgroth> no :-(
14:55:13 <pgroth> thanks
14:55:23 <TomDN> np :)
14:55:26 <pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
14:55:37 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P5, TomDN
14:55:47 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P5 is me
14:55:47 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:57:02 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aaaa
14:57:24 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:25 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:58:01 <Zakim> -TomDN
14:58:01 <Luc> @paul, we need to draft the f2f2 agenda
14:58:32 <pgroth> @luc: yes. next week I'm "on vacation" visiting parents so will have time
14:58:48 <jun> jun has joined #prov
14:58:58 <Zakim> +TomDN
14:58:58 <Luc> @paul: OK
14:59:07 <TomDN> sorry, phone dropped off for a second there
14:59:44 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:49 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:59:52 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:33 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:46 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:00:48 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
15:00:49 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:49 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:50 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:04 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
15:01:09 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:01:09 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:01:09 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:01:16 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P30
15:01:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:01:48 <Zakim> +??P20
15:01:58 <Paolo> zakim, ??P20 is me
15:01:58 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:02:08 <stain> I'm in a meeting like GK and dgarijo, but I'll join when/if you come to collection
15:02:17 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:23 <stain> and follow the hasProvenanceIn discussion on the chat
15:02:25 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-31
15:02:30 <KhalidBelhajjame> KhalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:02:33 <pgroth> proposed Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:02:38 <TomDN> +1
15:02:42 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:44 <dgarijo> +1
15:02:46 <Curt> +1
15:02:48 <jcheney> 0 - missed it
15:03:02 <smiles> +1
15:03:07 <Paolo> 0 -- missed it
15:03:11 <Zakim> +??P39
15:03:27 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P39 is me
15:03:28 <Zakim> +KhalidBelhajjame; got it
15:03:31 <pgroth> approved: Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:03:44 <Zakim> +??P41
15:03:52 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov
15:04:01 <pgroth> sandro are you there?
15:04:07 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:04:09 <TomDN> pgroth: we confirmed that sandro sent the announcement to the mailing lists, and Graham has reviewed the constraints document
15:04:12 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:04:32 <pgroth> Topic: Definition of role
15:05:05 <TomDN> pgroth: to summarize: we talked last week about expanding the definition of role
15:05:46 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:05:49 <TomDN> ... We tried to come to a revised definition during the week, that included both the object and subject of role
15:05:53 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:06:06 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:06:24 <satya> Zakim, GVoice is me
15:06:24 <Zakim> +satya; got it
15:06:27 <TomDN> ... No apparent consensus was reached
15:06:37 <pgroth> q?
15:06:37 <smiles> q+
15:06:46 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:07:29 <TomDN> smiles: In my email, I wasn't suggesting that we would drop 'role' and just have 'type'. 
15:07:46 <pgroth> q?
15:07:48 <TomDN> ... I would propose keeping what we had, I liked the definition of role
15:08:06 <TomDN> pgroth: What do you think about expanding the domain of role?
15:08:38 <pgroth> q?
15:08:41 <Luc> q+
15:08:49 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:08:56 <Zakim> +??P3
15:08:56 <TomDN> smiles: I don't have a strong objection to it, but I'm not quite sure what it imply
15:09:07 <MacTed> Zakim, mute ??p3
15:09:07 <Zakim> ??P3 should now be muted
15:09:50 <pgroth> q?
15:09:57 <Luc> q+
15:10:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:10:13 <TomDN> Luc: Simon's suggestion seems good. We could keep the current definition and make sure all documents are compatible with it
15:10:15 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:10:42 <TomDN> Luc: Would it cause a problem if you could not use roles in the Dictionary context?
15:10:58 <TomDN> tlebo: I would have to have an extention property
15:11:50 <Paolo> no objection
15:11:54 <pgroth> q?
15:11:56 <TomDN> pgroth: I think people just wanted to make role a bit more powerful, but were fine with the definition. Is there any objection to leaving role as it is?
15:12:04 <pgroth> q?
15:12:11 <Luc> @paul, for avoindance of doubt, can you record a resolution?
15:12:33 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:12:34 <pgroth> proposed: leave role as currently defined
15:12:37 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
15:12:42 <satya> +1
15:12:45 <Paolo> +1
15:12:48 <TomDN> +1
15:12:53 <jcheney> 0 - haven't been following but no objection
15:12:59 <SamCoppens> +1
15:13:21 <smiles> +1
15:13:24 <MacTed> +0
15:13:31 <CraigTrim> no objection
15:13:39 <pgroth> accepted: leave role as currently defined
15:13:55 <pgroth> Topic: Contextualization
15:14:19 <TomDN> pgroth: Luc, can you give an overview?
15:14:44 <TomDN> Luc: About a week ago, GK raised an issue that the provenance locator was too complex.
15:15:36 <TomDN> ... Reasons: Prov locator included things from the PAQ that would better not be mixed with the DM. THis was solved by removing these from the DM.
15:15:49 <pgroth> @sandro are you there?
15:16:08 <TomDN> ... A second objection was that it seemed as a special case of derivation, and it might be better to use things that we already have.
15:16:11 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:16:12 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:16:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, TomDN (muted), MacTed (muted), tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, ??P30, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, ??P41, satya, ??P3 (muted), Curt_Tilmes
15:16:15 <Zakim> TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens
15:16:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see satya, jun, zednik, stephenc, CraigTrim, KhalidBelhajjame, smiles, Paolo, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, jcheney, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, MacTed,
15:16:15 <Zakim> ... stain, trackbot, sandro
15:16:29 <TomDN> ... We looked at this during the weekend, and came up with above.
15:16:29 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html#term-contextualization
15:17:01 <TomDN> ... The idea is that a relation can be introduced that says that some thing is a contextualization of another thing.
15:17:24 <TomDN> ... Something that is a contextualization of another presents all aspects of the latter in a given context specified by descriptions found in a bundle. 
15:17:44 <pgroth> q?
15:17:56 <pgroth> q?
15:18:03 <TomDN> ... Discussion with tim and simon seems to be reaching consensus.
15:18:17 <pgroth> q?
15:18:28 <TomDN> ... In time, the provenance locator would disappear form prov DM, and the contextualization remains
15:18:37 <TomDN> s/form/from
15:19:15 <TomDN> pgroth: how does this relate to alternate/specialization?
15:19:48 <smiles> q+
15:19:56 <TomDN> Luc: difference with specialization is that contextualization looks at the aspects in a given context (bundle)
15:20:06 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:20:25 <Paolo> q+
15:20:33 <TomDN> smiles: At the moment it is a bit ambiguous
15:21:00 <TomDN> ... I suggest expressing contextualization as a relation between entity and bundle
15:21:20 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:21:30 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Paolo (10%)
15:21:30 <Luc> i couldn't understand simon
15:22:25 <TomDN> smiles: I don't have a problem with the current definition of contextualization, but changing the relationshi
15:22:40 <smiles> q+
15:22:43 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:22:53 <TomDN> ... to an entity-bundle relationship might help distinguishing it from specialization
15:23:57 <tlebo> contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to a "nonlocal" entity.
15:24:10 <TomDN> paolo: Is this as in importing provenance from a different bundle?
15:24:20 <pgroth> ack paolo
15:24:36 <TomDN> ... saying that "everything I say in that bundle about this entity, is also true in this bundle"
15:24:42 <Luc> bundle ex:run1     activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:00:00)  //duration: 1hour     wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"]) endBundle 
15:24:59 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:25:44 <pgroth> q?
15:25:51 <TomDN> Luc: I think so (see example)
15:26:07 <TomDN> Paolo: this is close to what I had in mind
15:26:32 <tlebo> contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the  "nonlocal" entity.
15:27:02 <TomDN> Luc: it is not really "importing"
15:27:25 <TomDN> ... That is an implementation choice, but it is not specified anywhere.
15:27:39 <Paolo> ack 
15:27:46 <Paolo> q?
15:27:47 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:28:17 <Zakim> +??P12
15:28:24 <TomDN> smiles: In the current DM, we say that a bundle is a set of descriptions. There's no reason for that set not to be contradictory with other sets.
15:29:00 <TomDN> ... My concern is that with this contextualization, we seem to suggest that there is some sort of coherence.
15:29:55 <pgroth> +q
15:30:06 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:30:09 <pgroth> q?
15:30:24 <tlebo> q+ to propose the definition: contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the "nonlocal" entity.
15:30:29 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:30:31 <TomDN> Luc: It's not our aim to imply any consistency
15:30:45 <TomDN> smiles: OK, but then we should specify this clearly.
15:30:46 <pgroth> q+
15:30:47 <Zakim> -??P12
15:31:09 <TomDN> tlebo: proposes the above definition.
15:31:19 <tlebo> q-
15:32:11 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:32:13 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:32:28 <Zakim> +??P12
15:32:31 <satya> q+
15:32:42 <TomDN> pgroth: 1. How core is it to the model? 2. Are we close to a definition?
15:33:45 <TomDN> Luc: There are examples of where we need this construct. And currently there is no way to assert them.
15:33:53 <tlebo> BTW, my definition is paired up with the example that I focus on: tool:analysis01 {     tool:Bob1          prov:specializationOf [               a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;               prov:identifier  ex:Bob;               prov:inContext ex:run1;         ];     . }
15:34:25 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:34:26 <TomDN> ... I like Tim's definition, and can agree with Simon's suggestion. We hope to converge within a few days.
15:34:45 <tlebo> bundles don't change.
15:34:48 <TomDN> satya: What happens if the bundle is changed after a contextualization?
15:35:00 <TomDN> ... Does this propagate?
15:35:21 <tlebo> +1 @luc, if the bundle changes, then you have a new bundle.
15:35:24 <TomDN> Luc: If a bundle changes, it is another bundle
15:36:03 <TomDN> satya: So there is no way that we will link those "updated" bundles?
15:36:09 <tlebo> @satya, link a revised bundle to it's predecessor via PROV constructs specializationOf and wasRevisedFrom .
15:36:17 <TomDN> ... (as is often done in the Semantic Web)
15:36:33 <tlebo> bundles are not buckets, they are sets of assertions.
15:36:59 <pgroth> q?
15:37:01 <tlebo> we have ways to link the bundles -- existing PROV constructs.
15:37:23 <TomDN> @satya: indeed, the assertions don't change, just the bundle
15:38:03 <TomDN> Luc: See Tim's comment. 
15:38:22 <TomDN> ... I don't think we changed the semantics with this construct.
15:38:44 <TomDN> ... If you change a set of assertions, you need to give it a different name.
15:38:55 <satya> agent(tool:ratedBob1, [perf:rating="good"])
15:39:46 <TomDN> Luc:  It seems the concern is rather to the notion of bundle, than to contextualization? 
15:39:49 <TomDN> satya: yes
15:40:25 <tlebo> @satya where is "bundle consistency" proclaimed in PROV? bundles are just sets of assertions, regardless of consistency.
15:41:08 <tlebo> bundling assertions does not imply consistency.
15:41:36 <pgroth> q?
15:41:37 <TomDN> satya: Since it is included as an example with the definition, it seems to someone reading the definition without knowing the discussion, that we are implying some semantics
15:42:24 <pgroth> q?
15:42:24 <TomDN> pgroth: Since there seems to be some convergence to this construct, we should try to work toward a definition everyone agrees with via the mailing list
15:42:38 <pgroth> Topic: Collections
15:42:41 <Paolo> (I'm afraid I am a lot more confused about this now than I was 1/2 hour ago...)
15:43:10 <Zakim> + +7.894.70.aacc
15:43:11 <TomDN> pgroth: Tim proposed some changes to Collections
15:43:22 <TomDN> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0133.html
15:44:10 <stainPhone> Zakim, +7.894.70.aacc is stain
15:44:19 <TomDN> tlebo: only changes that affect the DM:
15:44:21 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:44:29 <TomDN> ... - the notion of complete collection
15:44:32 <pgroth> q?
15:44:58 <TomDN> ... This optional attribute would be removed and changed to a domain extention
15:45:19 <TomDN> ... This is based on several concerns received about 'complete' Collections
15:45:36 <TomDN> ... in an open world
15:46:06 <pgroth> q?
15:47:02 <TomDN> Luc: Something more fundamental needs to be discussed...
15:47:28 <TomDN> ... Currently, we have a notion of empty Collection/Dictionary
15:47:36 <TomDN> ... and a notion of insertion
15:47:37 <Zakim> -satya
15:48:01 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:48:17 <TomDN> ... If you start with an empty Dictionary, and insert something, you have full knowledge about the Dictionary
15:48:27 <satya> Zakim, [GVoice] is satya
15:48:27 <Zakim> +satya; got it
15:48:30 <TomDN> ... Dito for removal
15:48:31 <pgroth> q?
15:49:03 <Zakim> -??P12
15:49:35 <TomDN> ... What we call a 'complete membership' when you are inserting into an empty Dictionary.
15:50:17 <pgroth> q?
15:50:18 <TomDN> ... The normal memberOf was added to allow insertion into an unspecified Dictionary
15:50:22 <pgroth> q?
15:50:42 <tlebo> FWIW, my work on Dictionary was centering around the example at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership/rdf/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership.ttl
15:51:02 <TomDN> pgroth: There's a difference between asserting that something is closed, and the thing actually being closed.
15:51:14 <tlebo> +1 pgroth
15:51:15 <pgroth> q?
15:51:30 <stainPhone> q+
15:51:39 <pgroth> ack stainPhone 
15:52:13 <tlebo> I'm using Paul's former to agree with keeping "completeness" in (asserting that something is closed). I'm ignoring his latter (the thing actually being closed).
15:53:07 <TomDN> (could you put your question on IRC stain? (sorry, missed it))
15:53:11 <stainPhone> Ok
15:53:51 <TomDN> Luc: what the model allows it that if you inserted e1 in d1, and that lead to d2.
15:54:08 <TomDN> ... you can still have that you insert something into d1, and that becomes d3
15:54:27 <pgroth> q?
15:55:09 <TomDN> pgroth: What is the conflict of what Tim proposes and the current DM?
15:55:20 <Paolo> q+
15:55:22 <stainPhone> I asked if dictionary insertions and removals are strictly functional, or if you could have both wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k1,v1)) and second wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k2,v2)) with additional key value pair
15:55:33 <stainPhone> Luc said that no, only one assertion. (right?)
15:55:35 <TomDN> Luc: not much. If we drop the attribute, we can still assert everything. We have the same expressivity
15:57:08 <KhalidBelhajjame> Yes Paolo, I remember the initial discussion
15:57:14 <pgroth> q?
15:57:18 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:57:23 <tlebo> FWIW, I've catalyzed this proposal for a variety of people. I've personally withdrawn my objections, but haven't heard others continuing to object.
15:57:53 <pgroth> q?
15:57:58 <TomDN> Paolo: This seems to go back to a previous discussion we had about the Open World assumption, and why we introduced the notion of completeness in the first place
15:58:03 <Zakim> -satya
15:58:10 <tlebo> yes, so I don't see anybody objecting.
15:58:16 <stainPhone> Who are they?
15:58:18 <Luc> who was objecting?
15:58:33 <pgroth> q?
15:58:38 <TomDN> pgroth: does anyone object to leaving it as it is now?
15:58:46 <TomDN> (silence)
15:58:47 <stainPhone> I'll pay them a visit! ;)
15:59:08 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:59:27 <Zakim> -??P3
15:59:28 <TomDN> pgroth: Maybe we should just put somewhere: "You can assert completeness, but you can never guarantee it"
15:59:40 <tlebo> +1 paul, we're asserting it and not guaranteeing it. This is what resolved my objection.
15:59:41 <pgroth> action: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness
15:59:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Add some text around collections to clarify completness [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-06-14].
15:59:46 <TomDN> Luc: will add some text for this.
16:00:12 <Paolo> well can you guarantee anything in provenance that you can express??
16:00:13 <KhalidBelhajjame> bye
16:00:15 <Zakim> -??P30
16:00:19 <Zakim> -KhalidBelhajjame
16:00:21 <Zakim> -Luc
16:00:23 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aabb
16:00:24 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:00:24 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:00:26 <TomDN> no prob :)
16:00:27 <pgroth> thanks tom
16:00:28 <Zakim> -stain
16:00:32 <Zakim> - +1.661.382.aaaa
16:00:33 <SamCoppens> bye
16:00:33 <Zakim> -[GVoice]
16:00:38 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:00:40 <Zakim> -??P41
16:00:41 <tlebo> bye!
16:00:42 <TomDN> @ Paolo: id say no, then it'd be called Trust
16:00:43 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:00:44 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:00:45 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:00:52 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:52 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:00:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TomDN, pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, SamCoppens, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, satya, stain,
16:00:55 <Zakim> ... [GVoice]
16:01:00 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:01:00 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:01:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:01 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-actions.rdf :
16:01:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness [1]
16:01:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc#T15-59-41