See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 June 2012
<pgroth> I need a scribe
<pgroth> anyone?
<pgroth> scribe anyone?
<pgroth> tom can you scribe?
noone signed up?
sure
<pgroth> no :-(
<pgroth> thanks
np: )
<pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
<Luc> @paul, we need to draft the f2f2 agenda
<pgroth> @luc: yes. next week I'm "on vacation" visiting parents so will have time
<Luc> @paul: OK
sorry, phone dropped off for a second there
<stain> I'm in a meeting like GK and dgarijo, but I'll join when/if you come to collection
<stain> and follow the hasProvenanceIn discussion on the chat
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-31
<pgroth> proposed Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
+1
<SamCoppens> +1
<dgarijo> +1
<Curt> +1
<jcheney> 0 - missed it
<smiles> +1
<Paolo> 0 -- missed it
<pgroth> approved: Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
<pgroth> sandro are you there?
pgroth: we confirmed that sandro sent the announcement to the mailing lists, and Graham has reviewed the constraints document
pgroth: to summarize: we talked
last week about expanding the definition of role
... We tried to come to a revised definition during the week,
that included both the object and subject of role
... No apparent consensus was reached
smiles: In my email, I wasn't
suggesting that we would drop 'role' and just have
'type'.
... I would propose keeping what we had, I liked the definition
of role
pgroth: What do you think about expanding the domain of role?
smiles: I don't have a strong objection to it, but I'm not quite sure what it imply
Luc: Simon's suggestion seems
good. We could keep the current definition and make sure all
documents are compatible with it
... Would it cause a problem if you could not use roles in the
Dictionary context?
tlebo: I would have to have an extention property
<Paolo> no objection
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?
<Luc> @paul, for avoindance of doubt, can you record a resolution?
<pgroth> proposed: leave role as currently defined
<KhalidBelhajjame> +1
<satya> +1
<Paolo> +1
+1
<jcheney> 0 - haven't been following but no objection
<SamCoppens> +1
<smiles> +1
<MacTed> +0
<CraigTrim> no objection
<pgroth> accepted: leave role as currently defined
pgroth: Luc, can you give an overview?
Luc: About a week ago, GK raised
an issue that the provenance locator was too complex.
... 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.
<pgroth> @sandro are you there?
Luc: 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.
<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
Luc: We looked at this during the weekend, and came up with above.
Luc: The idea is that a relation
can be introduced that says that some thing is a
contextualization of another thing.
... Something that is a contextualization of another presents
all aspects of the latter in a given context specified by
descriptions found in a bundle.
... Discussion with tim and simon seems to be reaching
consensus.
... In time, the provenance locator would disappear from prov
DM, and the contextualization remains
pgroth: how does this relate to alternate/specialization?
Luc: difference with specialization is that contextualization looks at the aspects in a given context (bundle)
smiles: At the moment it is a bit
ambiguous
... I suggest expressing contextualization as a relation
between entity and bundle
<Luc> i couldn't understand simon
smiles: I don't have a problem
with the current definition of contextualization, but changing
the relationshi
... to an entity-bundle relationship might help distinguishing
it from specialization
<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.
paolo: Is this as in importing
provenance from a different bundle?
... saying that "everything I say in that bundle about this
entity, is also true in this bundle"
<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
<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
Luc: I think so (see example)
Paolo: this is close to what I had in mind
<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.
Luc: it is not really
"importing"
... That is an implementation choice, but it is not specified
anywhere.
<Paolo> ack
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.
... My concern is that with this contextualization, we seem to
suggest that there is some sort of coherence.
<pgroth> +q
Luc: It's not our aim to imply any consistency
smiles: OK, but then we should specify this clearly.
tlebo: proposes the above definition.
pgroth: 1. How core is it to the model? 2. Are we close to a definition?
Luc: There are examples of where we need this construct. And currently there is no way to assert them.
<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; ]; . }
Luc: I like Tim's definition, and can agree with Simon's suggestion. We hope to converge within a few days.
<tlebo> bundles don't change.
satya: What happens if the bundle
is changed after a contextualization?
... Does this propagate?
<tlebo> +1 @luc, if the bundle changes, then you have a new bundle.
Luc: If a bundle changes, it is another bundle
satya: So there is no way that we will link those "updated" bundles?
<tlebo> @satya, link a revised bundle to it's predecessor via PROV constructs specializationOf and wasRevisedFrom .
satya: (as is often done in the Semantic Web)
<tlebo> bundles are not buckets, they are sets of assertions.
<tlebo> we have ways to link the bundles -- existing PROV constructs.
@satya: indeed, the assertions don't change, just the bundle
Luc: See Tim's comment.
... I don't think we changed the semantics with this
construct.
... If you change a set of assertions, you need to give it a
different name.
<satya> agent(tool:ratedBob1, [perf:rating="good"])
Luc: It seems the concern is rather to the notion of bundle, than to contextualization?
satya: yes
<tlebo> @satya where is "bundle consistency" proclaimed in PROV? bundles are just sets of assertions, regardless of consistency.
<tlebo> bundling assertions does not imply consistency.
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
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
<Paolo> (I'm afraid I am a lot more confused about this now than I was 1/2 hour ago...)
pgroth: Tim proposed some changes to Collections
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0133.html
tlebo: only changes that affect
the DM:
... - the notion of complete collection
... This optional attribute would be removed and changed to a
domain extention
... This is based on several concerns received about 'complete'
Collections
... in an open world
Luc: Something more fundamental
needs to be discussed...
... Currently, we have a notion of empty
Collection/Dictionary
... and a notion of insertion
... If you start with an empty Dictionary, and insert
something, you have full knowledge about the Dictionary
... Dito for removal
... What we call a 'complete membership' when you are inserting
into an empty Dictionary.
... The normal memberOf was added to allow insertion into an
unspecified Dictionary
<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
pgroth: There's a difference between asserting that something is closed, and the thing actually being closed.
<tlebo> +1 pgroth
<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).
(could you put your question on IRC stain? (sorry, missed it))
<stainPhone> Ok
Luc: what the model allows it
that if you inserted e1 in d1, and that lead to d2.
... you can still have that you insert something into d1, and
that becomes d3
pgroth: What is the conflict of what Tim proposes and the current DM?
<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
<stainPhone> Luc said that no, only one assertion. (right?)
Luc: not much. If we drop the attribute, we can still assert everything. We have the same expressivity
<KhalidBelhajjame> Yes Paolo, I remember the initial discussion
<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.
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
<tlebo> yes, so I don't see anybody objecting.
<stainPhone> Who are they?
<Luc> who was objecting?
pgroth: does anyone object to leaving it as it is now?
(silence)
<stainPhone> I'll pay them a visit! ;)
pgroth: Maybe we should just put somewhere: "You can assert completeness, but you can never guarantee it"
<tlebo> +1 paul, we're asserting it and not guaranteeing it. This is what resolved my objection.
<pgroth> ACTION: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Add some text around collections to clarify completness [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-06-14].
Luc: will add some text for this.
<Paolo> well can you guarantee anything in provenance that you can express??
<KhalidBelhajjame> bye
no prob :)
<pgroth> thanks tom
<SamCoppens> bye
<tlebo> bye!
@ Paolo: id say no, then it'd be called Trust
<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
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/form/from/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: TomDN Found Scribe: Tom De Nies Default Present: TomDN, pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, SamCoppens, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, satya, stain, [GVoice] Present: TomDN pgroth +1.661.382.aaaa Luc Curt_Tilmes tlebo +44.131.467.aabb MacTed SamCoppens Paolo KhalidBelhajjame satya stain [GVoice] Regrets: Graham_Klyne Daniel_Garijo Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.06.07 Found Date: 07 Jun 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html People with action items: luc[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]