edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 02 June 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02
Seen
Daniel Garijo, David Corsar, Edoardo Pignotti, Eric Stephan, Graham Klyne, Iker Huerga, James Myers, James Frew, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Jörn Hees, Kai Eckert, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Olaf Hartig, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Yogesh Simmhan, Yolanda Gil, david schaengold
Guests
Yolanda Gil
Regrets
Paul Groth, Olaf Hartig, Eric Stephan
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Paolo Missier
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. minutes link
  2. to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks link
  3. the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise link
Topics
  1. Admin

    The last minutes were accepted; Tim's outstanding action was closed, because not crucial currently, invited expert issues are still being resolved by the W3C, and all are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings.

    1. minutes

    2. review of actions

    3. Invited Experts

  2. F2F1

    Please sign up for F2F meeting in Boston (or indicate regrets or online participation) and be ready to contribute to and review documents on the wiki. The deadline to produce documents for review is a week before F2F1 (June 29th)

  3. Launching Task Forces

    Four definition contributors (Khalid, Jun, Satya and Paolo) have been identified for the Model TF. Two coordinators (Yogesh and Simon Miles) have been identified for the Provenance Access and Query TF. And likewise, for the Connection Task Force (Eric S and Kai). Coordinators still need to be identified for the last TF. All coordinators have been asked to produce a delivery plan to be discussed at next telcon (See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10).

  4. model task force

    The strategy is to reach consensus on concept properties from email and wiki discussions. Four proposals were put forward in the agenda. Three were discussed very constructively. We reached consensus on the first two. We were also converging towards consensus for the third proposal, but we run out of time. Actions were assigned to Satya, Kai and Jim (Action-6, Action-7,and Action-8) to formulate variants of the third proposal, to be debated by email and next week at the telcon.

    1. proposal 1: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time

    2. proposal 2: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

    3. proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change"

<luc>Guest: Yolanda Gil
14:43:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-irc

14:43:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:43:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:43:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:43:41 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011
14:43:54 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:43:54 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes

14:44:11 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02
14:44:19 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:26 <Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier

(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)

14:44:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

14:44:50 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Olaf Hartig, Eric Stephan
14:45:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:45:59 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011
14:52:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

14:52:14 <Zakim> +luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +luc

14:55:44 <Zakim> +??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13

14:55:58 <smiles> zakim, ??P13 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P13 is me

14:55:58 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

14:55:59 <Zakim> +frew

Zakim IRC Bot: +frew

14:58:09 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

14:58:11 <Luc> Hi Stephen, welcome!

Luc Moreau: Hi Stephen, welcome!

14:59:42 <Zakim> +Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh

15:02:48 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02

Daniel Garijo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02

15:04:59 <paolo> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: The last minutes were accepted; Tim's outstanding action was closed, because not crucial currently, invited expert issues are still being resolved by the W3C, and all are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings.

<luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; Tim's outstanding action was closed, because not crucial currently,   invited expert issues are still being resolved by the W3C, and all are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings.
<luc>Subtopic: minutes

1.1. minutes

15:03:33 <frew> +1 minutes

James Frew: +1 minutes

15:03:34 <paolo> PROPOSED: accept minutes from previous conference call

PROPOSED: accept minutes from previous conference call

15:03:36 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:03:37 <paolo> +1

+1

15:03:39 <DavidSchaengold> +1

david schaengold: +1

15:03:39 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:03:39 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

15:03:40 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1

15:03:41 <Yogesh> +

Yogesh Simmhan: +

15:03:44 <iker> +1

Iker Huerga: +1

15:03:46 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1

15:03:59 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1

15:03:59 <GK> abstain (was present but not in audio)

Graham Klyne: abstain (was present but not in audio)

15:04:09 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:04:13 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1

15:04:22 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:04:32 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

15:04:45 <paolo> Accepted: minutes

RESOLVED: minutes

15:04:59 <paolo> SubTopic: review of actions

1.2. review of actions

<luc>SubTopic: Invited Experts

1.3. Invited Experts

15:05:58 <paolo> Luc: invited experts  -- not all experts on board yet

Luc Moreau: invited experts -- not all experts on board yet

15:06:15 <paolo> Luc: calling for help from Sandro but he's not responding

Luc Moreau: calling for help from Sandro but he's not responding

15:06:27 <paolo> Luc: apologies for delay in dealing with experts

Luc Moreau: apologies for delay in dealing with experts

15:06:45 <paolo> Topic: F2F1

2. F2F1

Summary: Please sign up for F2F meeting in Boston (or indicate regrets or online participation) and be ready to contribute to and review documents on the wiki. The deadline to produce documents for review is a week before F2F1 (June 29th)

<luc>Summary: Please sign up for F2F meeting in Boston (or indicate regrets or online participation) and be ready to contribute to and review documents on the wiki. The deadline to produce documents for review is a week before F2F1 (June 29th)
15:06:47 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1

15:07:23 <paolo> Luc: please signal whether you can attend

Luc Moreau: please signal whether you can attend

15:07:40 <paolo> Luc: meeting objectives are set, docs will be produced and posted to the wiki

Luc Moreau: meeting objectives are set, docs will be produced and posted to the wiki

15:07:50 <dgarijo> I'll attend online to the f2f

Daniel Garijo: I'll attend online to the f2f

15:08:23 <paolo> Luc: also indicate whether you will attend online

Luc Moreau: also indicate whether you will attend online

15:09:17 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

Simon Miles: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

<luc>Topic: Launching Task Forces

3. Launching Task Forces

Summary: Four definition contributors (Khalid, Jun, Satya and Paolo) have been identified for the Model TF. Two coordinators (Yogesh and Simon Miles) have been identified for the Provenance Access and Query TF. And likewise, for the Connection Task Force (Eric S and Kai). Coordinators still need to be identified for the last TF. All coordinators have been asked to produce a delivery plan to be discussed at next telcon (See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10).

<luc>Summary: Four definition contributors (Khalid, Jun, Satya and Paolo) have been identified for the Model TF. Two coordinators (Yogesh and Simon Miles) have been identified for the Provenance Access and Query TF.  And likewise, for the Connection Task Force (Eric S and Kai). Coordinators still need to be identified for the last TF.  All coordinators have been asked to produce a delivery plan to be discussed at next telcon (See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10).
15:09:21 <paolo> Luc: we invited people to sign up to Task forces, some have not yet done so

Luc Moreau: we invited people to sign up to Task forces, some have not yet done so

15:10:18 <paolo> Luc: Model task force: Jun, Satya, Khalid, Paolo have started adding their definitions on the wiki

Luc Moreau: Model task force: Jun, Satya, Khalid, Paolo have started adding their definitions on the wiki

15:10:22 <Zakim> -DavidSchaengold

Zakim IRC Bot: -DavidSchaengold

15:10:23 <paolo> Luc: others please contribute

Luc Moreau: others please contribute

15:10:41 <GK> q+ to ask what it means to be a member of a TF beyond being member of this WG

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask what it means to be a member of a TF beyond being member of this WG

15:10:46 <paolo> Luc: provenance access and query TF: Yogesh, Simon Miles have agreed to be coordinators

Luc Moreau: provenance access and query TF: Yogesh, Simon Miles have agreed to be coordinators

15:11:09 <paolo> Luc: Connection TF: Eric Stephan, Kai coordinate

Luc Moreau: Connection TF: Eric Stephan, Kai coordinate

15:11:32 <paolo> Luc: Implementation TF: still looking for confirmed coordinators

Luc Moreau: Implementation TF: still looking for confirmed coordinators

15:11:37 <tlebo> are the coordinators listed someplace other than http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces ?

Timothy Lebo: are the coordinators listed someplace other than http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces ?

15:12:21 <paolo> Graham: what does it mean to be a TF member wrt membership of group at large?

Graham Klyne: what does it mean to be a TF member wrt membership of group at large?

15:12:51 <paolo> Luc: TF membership involves active contributions + author/review docs

Luc Moreau: TF membership involves active contributions + author/review docs

15:14:30 <paolo> Luc: roles and activities within a TF may vary, people can choose. This is to understand who the coordinators can expect to interact with

Luc Moreau: roles and activities within a TF may vary, people can choose. This is to understand who the coordinators can expect to interact with

15:14:59 <paolo> Kai: need more contributors to the connection TF

Kai Eckert: need more contributors to the connection TF

15:15:50 <paolo> Luc: TF3/4 -- possible model is: template to be produced by coordinators, contributors to fill in the template

Luc Moreau: TF3/4 -- possible model is: template to be produced by coordinators, contributors to fill in the template

15:16:28 <paolo> Luc: means that for these TF workload is expected to be very distributed

Luc Moreau: means that for these TF workload is expected to be very distributed

15:17:32 <paolo> Luc: coordinators expected to propose a doc structure in the short term in view of the F2F. Outlines to be discussed in next week's telecon

Luc Moreau: coordinators expected to propose a doc structure in the short term in view of the F2F. Outlines to be discussed in next week's telecon

<luc>  See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10

Luc Moreau: See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10

15:18:21 <paolo> Yogesh: will work with Simon to get something ready for next week

Yogesh Simmhan: will work with Simon to get something ready for next week

15:19:02 <paolo> Luc: natural deadline is F2F meeting date, however one week review time would be good. This means end of June effective deadline

Luc Moreau: natural deadline is F2F meeting date, however one week review time would be good. This means end of June effective deadline

15:19:26 <paolo> Luc: actions will be created on each coordinator for doc outlines to be created

Luc Moreau: actions will be created on each coordinator for doc outlines to be created

15:20:02 <jorn> already italized [sic] coords of TF3

Jörn Hees: already italized [sic] coords of TF3

15:20:15 <paolo> tlebo: are coordinators listed on the TF page?

Timothy Lebo: are coordinators listed on the TF page?

15:20:24 <paolo> Luc: not yet, will do

Luc Moreau: not yet, will do

15:21:17 <GK> @tlebo TF wiki page has space for coordinators: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

Graham Klyne: @tlebo TF wiki page has space for coordinators: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

15:21:22 <paolo> Topic: model task force

4. model task force

Summary: The strategy is to reach consensus on concept properties from email and wiki discussions. Four proposals were put forward in the agenda. Three were discussed very constructively. We reached consensus on the first two. We were also converging towards consensus for the third proposal, but we run out of time. Actions were assigned to Satya, Kai and Jim (Action-6, Action-7,and Action-8) to formulate variants of the third proposal, to be debated by email and next week at the telcon.

<luc>Summary: The strategy is to reach consensus on concept properties from email  and wiki discussions. Four proposals were put forward in the agenda. Three were discussed very constructively. We reached consensus on the first two. We were also converging towards consensus for the third proposal, but we run out of time. Actions were assigned to Satya, Kai and Jim (Action-6, Action-7,and Action-8) to formulate variants of the third proposal, to be debated by email and next week at the telcon.
15:22:02 <paolo> Luc: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-)

Luc Moreau: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-)

15:23:21 <paolo> Luc: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds

Luc Moreau: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds

15:24:13 <paolo> Luc: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed

Luc Moreau: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed

15:24:47 <paolo> Luc: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda

Luc Moreau: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda

15:25:38 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 1: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time

4.1. proposal 1: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time

15:25:40 <Jmyers4> +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model?

James Myers: +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model?

15:26:21 <paolo> Luc: soliciting comments on this

Luc Moreau: soliciting comments on this

15:27:02 <paolo> GK: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time

Graham Klyne: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time

15:27:33 <paolo> Luc: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both

Luc Moreau: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both

15:27:55 <satya> I tend to agree with GK

Satya Sahoo: I tend to agree with GK

15:28:21 <paolo> GK: sees common thread emerging

Graham Klyne: sees common thread emerging

15:30:02 <paolo> jcheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately

James Cheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately

15:30:03 <GK> Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later

Graham Klyne: Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later

15:30:40 <paolo> Luc: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess

Luc Moreau: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess

15:31:27 <paolo> Luc: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model

Luc Moreau: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model

15:32:16 <paolo> Luc: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later

Luc Moreau: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later

15:33:09 <paolo> smiles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"?

Simon Miles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"?

15:33:54 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own

Luc Moreau: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own

15:33:57 <GK> Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Graham Klyne: Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

15:34:20 <stain> GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :)

15:34:31 <GK> q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Graham Klyne: q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

15:34:40 <dgarijo> +1 to what satya said

Daniel Garijo: +1 to what satya said

15:34:42 <paolo> satya: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled more easily in the context of the example

Satya Sahoo: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled more easily in the context of the example

15:35:18 <paolo> Luc: but, in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example

Luc Moreau: but, in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example

15:35:39 <zednik> +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access)

Stephan Zednik: +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access)

15:36:09 <jorn> q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

Jörn Hees: q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

15:37:10 <paolo> Luc: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" debate

Luc Moreau: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" debate

15:37:44 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

15:37:46 <paolo> satya: propose to ask "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example

Satya Sahoo: propose to ask "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example

15:39:02 <paolo> GK: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident

Graham Klyne: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident

15:40:04 <zednik> +1 for renaming resource

Stephan Zednik: +1 for renaming resource

15:40:12 <paolo> jorn: term "resource" seems overloaded. so should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal

Jörn Hees: term "resource" seems overloaded. so should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal

15:40:40 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

Zakim IRC Bot: jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

15:40:47 <paolo> Luc: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change"

Luc Moreau: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change"

15:41:05 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:41:07 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:41:13 <paolo> Luc: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks

Luc Moreau: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks

15:41:17 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

15:41:17 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:41:18 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1

15:41:18 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:41:21 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:41:21 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:41:21 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1

15:41:22 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

15:41:23 <Luc> proposed: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

PROPOSED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

15:41:24 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:41:24 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:41:24 <iker> +1

Iker Huerga: +1

15:41:27 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:41:27 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1

15:41:28 <paolo> +1

+1

15:41:28 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1

15:41:32 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:42:24 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

15:43:32 <paolo> satya agrees with Luc's proposal in current subtopic

satya agrees with Luc's proposal in current subtopic

<luc>ACCEPTED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

RESOLVED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

15:43:51 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 2: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

4.2. proposal 2: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

15:44:40 <paolo> frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done?

James Frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done?

15:45:37 <paolo> GK: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, my position is to avoid simply adopting one of those models

Graham Klyne: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, my position is to avoid simply adopting one of those models

15:47:08 <paolo> Luc: with my co-chair tat off, I note that not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, I do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways

Luc Moreau: with my co-chair tat off, I note that not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, I do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways

15:47:38 <satya> agree

Satya Sahoo: agree

15:47:43 <smiles> yes

Simon Miles: yes

15:47:49 <paolo> proposed: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise"

PROPOSED: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise"

15:47:53 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:47:54 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:47:56 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:47:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:47:59 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:48:02 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:48:04 <paolo>  the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

15:48:04 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

PROPOSED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

15:48:07 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:48:07 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1

15:48:07 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

15:48:08 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:48:08 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1

15:48:08 <Jmyers4> agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable

James Myers: agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable

15:48:09 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:48:10 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:48:11 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1

15:48:12 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1

15:48:13 <paolo> +1

+1

15:48:15 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:48:35 <YolandaGil> I wonder what category is "otherwise"

Yolanda Gil: I wonder what category is "otherwise"

15:49:11 <Jmyers4> conceptual, logical

James Myers: conceptual, logical

15:49:38 <GK> I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time

Graham Klyne: I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time

15:49:45 <paolo> YolandaGil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to?

Yolanda Gil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to?

15:50:35 <tlebo> anything to which one may want to refer.

Timothy Lebo: anything to which one may want to refer.

15:50:53 <zednik> mutable?

Stephan Zednik: mutable?

15:50:56 <GK> Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition?

Graham Klyne: Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition?

15:51:00 <paulo> in PML, we use the  identifiedThing concept (something that we can refer to)

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: in PML, we use the identifiedThing concept (something that we can refer to)

15:51:03 <paolo> YolandaGil: then, correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"?

Yolanda Gil: then, correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"?

15:51:13 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

PROPOSED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

15:51:16 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1

15:51:22 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:51:23 <satya> +!

Satya Sahoo: +!

15:51:24 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

15:51:25 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1

15:51:25 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:51:26 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1

15:51:26 <tlebo> +100

Timothy Lebo: +100

15:51:26 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

15:51:28 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:51:29 <frew> +1

James Frew: +1

15:51:29 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:51:29 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1

15:51:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:51:31 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:51:31 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:51:33 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1

15:51:38 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:52:04 <paolo> accepted: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

RESOLVED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

15:52:24 <paulo> if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to?

15:52:47 <GK> q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones

15:53:04 <paolo> Luc: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals

Luc Moreau: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals

15:53:15 <jorn> q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

Jörn Hees: q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

15:53:39 <paolo> subtopic:  proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change"

4.3. proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change"

15:54:12 <paolo> GK: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement

Graham Klyne: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement

15:54:26 <satya> +1 for GK's point

Satya Sahoo: +1 for GK's point

15:54:56 <paolo> satya: what do we mean by immutable things?

Satya Sahoo: what do we mean by immutable things?

15:55:36 <GK> @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable.

Graham Klyne: @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable.

15:56:35 <paolo> satya: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable

Satya Sahoo: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable

15:56:45 <GK> @satya, agree, focus on what's required

Graham Klyne: @satya, agree, focus on what's required

15:57:28 <paolo> Jmyers4: mutability leads to a number of special cases

James Myers: mutability leads to a number of special cases

15:57:37 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

Zakim IRC Bot: jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

15:58:57 <tlebo> is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach.

Timothy Lebo: is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach.

15:59:19 <satya> good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs)

Satya Sahoo: good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs)

15:59:39 <paolo> jorn: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model

Jörn Hees: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model

15:59:44 <Jmyers4> I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability

James Myers: I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability

16:00:14 <tlebo> must go. apologies.

Timothy Lebo: must go. apologies.

16:01:40 <GK> I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to

Graham Klyne: I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to

16:02:50 <paolo> smiles: immutability may not be the issue

Simon Miles: immutability may not be the issue

16:03:49 <GK> @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance"

Graham Klyne: @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance"

16:04:19 <paolo> khalidbelhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions

Khalid Belhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions

16:04:37 <Jmyers4> if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources)

James Myers: if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources)

16:05:31 <paolo> paolo: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused

Paolo Missier: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused

16:05:43 <frew> "WORM" resource?

James Frew: "WORM" resource?

16:05:52 <satya> I think we need more discussion - over mailing list?

Satya Sahoo: I think we need more discussion - over mailing list?

16:05:55 <GK> Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed

Graham Klyne: Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed

16:05:59 <paolo> Luc: is there a consensus?

Luc Moreau: is there a consensus?

16:06:09 <Jmyers4> -1 - I'd like to discuss things together...

James Myers: -1 - I'd like to discuss things together...

16:06:17 <jcheney> what's the formal proposal now?

James Cheney: what's the formal proposal now?

16:07:04 <satya> Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object

PROPOSED: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object

16:07:19 <zednik> +q statement about mutability

Stephan Zednik: +q statement about mutability

16:07:37 <kai> I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning.

Kai Eckert: I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning.

16:07:45 <paolo> satya: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example

Satya Sahoo: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example

16:08:25 <GK> @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to"

Graham Klyne: @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to"

16:08:59 <paolo> Jmyers4: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion

James Myers: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion

16:09:00 <Luc> would it help if we said state of a thing

Luc Moreau: would it help if we said state of a thing

16:09:12 <Luc> instead of a thing that does not change

Luc Moreau: instead of a thing that does not change

16:09:12 <dgarijo> even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion

Daniel Garijo: even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion

16:09:16 <satya> @GK agree, if required for use case

Satya Sahoo: @GK agree, if required for use case

16:10:32 <paolo> action: Jmyers4, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week

ACTION: Jmyers4, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week

16:10:34 <Jmyers4> I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model

James Myers: I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model

16:10:54 <Jmyers4> Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer...

James Myers: Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer...

16:11:28 <jorn> subject ?

Jörn Hees: subject ?

16:11:34 <satya> entity?

Satya Sahoo: entity?

16:11:37 <zednik> entity

Stephan Zednik: entity

16:11:42 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term

Luc Moreau: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term

16:11:43 <kai> +1 for entity

Kai Eckert: +1 for entity

16:11:51 <GK> "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)?

Graham Klyne: "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)?

16:12:26 <paolo> +1 for "Subject of provenance" (SoP)

+1 for "Subject of provenance" (SoP)

16:12:46 <dgarijo> +1 for Subject of Provenance

Daniel Garijo: +1 for Subject of Provenance

16:13:10 <paolo> paulo: makes connection b/w mut/immut and physical/digital

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: makes connection b/w mut/immut and physical/digital

16:14:59 <paolo> paulo: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable

16:15:07 <paolo> Luc: true, but not current topic

Luc Moreau: true, but not current topic

16:15:09 <stain> mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable

Stian Soiland-Reyes: mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable

16:15:39 <kai> Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp.

Kai Eckert: Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp.

<luc> ACTION-6, ACTION-7, ACTION-8 to Kai, Jim and Satya, respectively

Luc Moreau: ACTION-6, ACTION-7, ACTION-8 to Kai, Jim and Satya, respectively

16:15:55 <paolo> Luc: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow

Luc Moreau: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow

16:16:23 <stain> I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed



Formatted by CommonScribe