edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 22 September 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22
Seen
Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, Helena Deus, James Myers, James McCusker, James Cheney, Jörn Hees, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Vinh Nguyen, Yogesh Simmhan
Regrets
Helena Deus, Stephan Zednik, Christine Runnegar
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Curt Tilmes
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions

None.

Topics
  1. Admin

  2. Action Items to Review

    RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents that may be of interest to the group

  3. Scribes

    Need them, please sign up.

  4. Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion

    Met with RDF group to discuss named graphs to determine potential changes to RDF that could support provenance requirements. Sandro provided a unifying use case.

  5. Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model

    Discussed mapping, conceptual model will drive formal model, but constraints of technology and ambiguities may require iteration with conceptual model to clarify concepts and ensure they can be adequately represented. Primary target of the formal model is the semantic web stack, but the conceptual model will also enable other technologies, keep interoperability in mind as the models develop.

  6. Conceptual Model

    New iteration release for discussion. Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately.

  7. Formal Model

    New release addressing many issues, some more remain. It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example.

14:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-irc

14:53:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:53:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:53:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

14:53:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:24 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2011
14:53:28 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:53:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

14:53:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

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

14:53:36 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

14:53:40 <Curt> I will scribe

Curt Tilmes: I will scribe

14:53:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22
14:54:08 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:14 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes

(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)

14:54:25 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

14:54:31 <pgroth> there you go Curt

Paul Groth: there you go Curt

14:54:35 <pgroth> thanks for stepping up

Paul Groth: thanks for stepping up

14:55:46 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

14:55:59 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aaaa

14:56:15 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me

14:56:15 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it

14:56:54 <pgroth> Regrets: Helena Deus, Stephan Zednik, Christine Runnegar
14:58:30 <Zakim> +??P48

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P48

14:58:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P48 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P48 is me

14:58:41 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

14:58:48 <JimMyers> JimM has joined #prov

James Myers: JimM has joined #prov

14:59:11 <Zakim> +??P49

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P49

14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P53

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P53

14:59:34 <Zakim> +??P8

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8

14:59:41 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aabb

14:59:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P8 is me

14:59:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

14:59:50 <Zakim> -??P49

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P49

14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P17

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17

14:59:59 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

15:00:08 <Zakim> +??P29

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29

15:00:08 <Luc> zaim, ??P17 is me

Luc Moreau: zaim, ??P17 is me

15:00:12 <James McCusker> Zakim, +1.518.276.aabb is me

James McCusker: Zakim, +1.518.276.aabb is me

15:00:12 <Zakim> +JimM; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +JimM; got it

15:00:18 <GK> zakim, ??p29 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p29 is me

15:00:18 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

15:00:18 <Luc> zakim, ??P17 is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, ??P17 is me

15:00:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it

15:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.937.343.aacc

15:01:15 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aacc is me

Vinh Nguyen: zakim, +1.937.343.aacc is me

15:01:15 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Vinh; got it

15:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aadd

15:02:03 <Zakim> +??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12

15:02:12 <tlebo> zakim, aadd is me

Timothy Lebo: zakim, aadd is me

15:02:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it

15:02:54 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:02:58 <pgroth>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-15

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-15

15:03:04 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 15 telecon

Paul Groth: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 15 telecon

15:03:06 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:03:08 <Curt> +1

+1

15:03:09 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:03:11 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:03:14 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:03:15 <JimMyers> +1

James Myers: +1

15:03:18 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:03:47 <JimMcCusker> 0 (did not attend)

James McCusker: 0 (did not attend)

15:03:52 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

<Curt> Topic: Action Items to Review

2. Action Items to Review

Summary: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents that may be of interest to the group

<Curt> Summary: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents that may be of interest to the group
15:03:58 <pgroth>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P36

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36

15:04:36 <Curt> pgroth: action on Satya superceded by Sandro's work we'll cover later -- close it

Paul Groth: action on Satya superceded by Sandro's work we'll cover later -- close it

15:04:44 <khalidbelhajjame> zkim, ??P36 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zkim, ??P36 is me

15:04:51 <pgroth> Reviews for RDB2RDF working group specs

Paul Groth: Reviews for RDB2RDF working group specs

15:05:08 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- 2011-09-22 telecon agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22

Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- 2011-09-22 telecon agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22

15:05:09 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents

Paul Groth: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents

15:05:21 <Curt> ... may be of interest to this group

... may be of interest to this group

15:05:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P36 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P36 is me

15:06:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it

15:06:05 <Curt> Luc: do they want us to look at a specific section?

Luc Moreau: do they want us to look at a specific section?

15:06:15 <khalidbelhajjame> what is RDB2RFF?

Khalid Belhajjame: what is RDB2RFF?

15:06:28 <khalidbelhajjame> RDB2RDF

Khalid Belhajjame: RDB2RDF

15:06:38 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF is working on relational databases

Paul Groth: RDB2RDF is working on relational databases

15:06:45 <Curt> ... not sure which sections we might be interested in

... not sure which sections we might be interested in

15:06:50 <Paolo> @khalid: mapping from Relational to RDF

Paolo Missier: @khalid: mapping from Relational to RDF

15:06:57 <Curt> ... follow up to mailing list

... follow up to mailing list

<Curt> Topic: Scribes

3. Scribes

Summary: Need them, please sign up.

<Curt> Summary: Need them, please sign up.
15:06:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes

15:07:08 <Curt> ... need scribes, please sign up

... need scribes, please sign up

15:07:11 <satya> I was part of the RDB2RDF incubator group and worked on a survey - may have mentioned about provenance in that, I will try to review it

Satya Sahoo: I was part of the RDB2RDF incubator group and worked on a survey - may have mentioned about provenance in that, I will try to review it

15:07:27 <Zakim> +??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16

15:07:38 <jcheney> zakim, ??P16 is me

James Cheney: zakim, ??P16 is me

15:07:38 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it

15:07:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:07:55 <pgroth> Topic: Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion

4. Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion

Summary: Met with RDF group to discuss named graphs to determine potential changes to RDF that could support provenance requirements. Sandro provided a unifying use case.

<Curt> Summary: Met with RDF group to discuss named graphs to determine potential changes to RDF that could support provenance requirements. Sandro provided a unifying use case.
15:08:01 <Curt> pgroth: sandro to summarize RDF discussion

Paul Groth: sandro to summarize RDF discussion

15:08:11 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-15

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-15

15:08:32 <Curt> sandro: last week we had a common meeting with RDF group, many from both groups

Sandro Hawke: last week we had a common meeting with RDF group, many from both groups

15:08:51 <Curt> ... didn't get as far as we wanted, missing some common language

... didn't get as far as we wanted, missing some common language

15:09:13 <Curt> ... trying to determine what is needed in RDF to support provenance requirements

... trying to determine what is needed in RDF to support provenance requirements

15:09:24 <Curt> ... where will we need RDF to support provenance

... where will we need RDF to support provenance

15:09:34 <Curt> ... provenance of RDF is needed by both groups

... provenance of RDF is needed by both groups

15:09:51 <Curt> ... sandro took action item to develop use case

... sandro took action item to develop use case

15:09:52 <Zakim> +??P24

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24

15:10:00 <Curt> ... which was sent to both groups

... which was sent to both groups

15:10:24 <Curt> ... unifying use case combining multiple inputs to determine trust

... unifying use case combining multiple inputs to determine trust

15:10:46 <Curt> ... use case of restaurant reviews is a simple stand in for overall use case

... use case of restaurant reviews is a simple stand in for overall use case

15:11:07 <Curt> ... didn't schedule next telecon, but follow up on mailing list rdf-prov

... didn't schedule next telecon, but follow up on mailing list rdf-prov

15:11:22 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:11:27 <Curt> ... hopefully make progress on addressing issues from both groups

... hopefully make progress on addressing issues from both groups

15:11:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:11:57 <Curt> pgroth: is it clear what this group needs to provide?

Paul Groth: is it clear what this group needs to provide?

15:11:57 <tlebo> what was the rdf + prov list address?

Timothy Lebo: what was the rdf + prov list address?

15:11:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:12:06 <Curt> ... what is the path forward?

... what is the path forward?

15:12:20 <Curt> sandro: we haven't decided on a path forward yet

Sandro Hawke: we haven't decided on a path forward yet

15:12:28 <Curt> ... still waiting on responses to use case

... still waiting on responses to use case

15:12:47 <jcheney> +q

James Cheney: +q

15:12:53 <Curt> ... would be good to hear comments, either that is right, or here's how to change it

... would be good to hear comments, either that is right, or here's how to change it

15:13:04 <GK> (Seems to me that we need to understand each others' language and expectations before charting a route forwards)

Graham Klyne: (Seems to me that we need to understand each others' language and expectations before charting a route forwards)

15:13:22 <Curt> ... please comment and feed back to sandro

... please comment and feed back to sandro

15:13:41 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

15:13:57 <tlebo> public-rdf-prov@w3.org

Timothy Lebo: public-rdf-prov@w3.org

15:14:09 <Curt> jcheney: didn't attend telecon, use case reminded of incubator use cases

James Cheney: didn't attend telecon, use case reminded of incubator use cases

15:14:23 <Curt> ... someone familiar with incubator use cases may want to take a look

... someone familiar with incubator use cases may want to take a look

15:14:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements

15:14:43 <Curt> ... incubator had a short paper on named graphs for RDF that could help

... incubator had a short paper on named graphs for RDF that could help

15:14:53 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/

15:14:55 <GK> @Sandro: one reason you may not get responses is the requirement to participate in yet another mailing list

Graham Klyne: @Sandro: one reason you may not get responses is the requirement to participate in yet another mailing list

15:15:09 <Curt> sandro: please summarize large documents, since people won't read the large docs.

Sandro Hawke: please summarize large documents, since people won't read the large docs.

15:15:19 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:15:29 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/images/3/3f/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-submitted.pdf

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/images/3/3f/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-submitted.pdf

15:15:46 <Curt> pgroth: another issue - our conceptual model has different versions/serializations

Paul Groth: another issue - our conceptual model has different versions/serializations

15:16:09 <Curt> ... we could figure out how to convert our stuff into current RDF

... we could figure out how to convert our stuff into current RDF

15:16:24 <Curt> ... it is hard to determine how RDF might change

... it is hard to determine how RDF might change

15:16:30 <GK> @pgroth +1

Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1

15:16:39 <GK> q+ to disagree with sandro

Graham Klyne: q+ to disagree with sandro

15:17:05 <Curt> sandro: RDF lacks mechanism to express endorsement of triples

Sandro Hawke: RDF lacks mechanism to express endorsement of triples

15:17:09 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

15:17:36 <Curt> GK: disagree - there are ways to express those things

Graham Klyne: disagree - there are ways to express those things

15:17:47 <Curt> ... RDF has those mechanisms, maybe complicated, but possible

... RDF has those mechanisms, maybe complicated, but possible

15:18:12 <Curt> ... could develop simpler mechanisms to handle them

... could develop simpler mechanisms to handle them

15:18:21 <tlebo> graph literals?

Timothy Lebo: graph literals?

15:18:24 <Curt> ... what should we call them instead of named graphs?

... what should we call them instead of named graphs?

15:18:29 <Curt> ... just 'graphs'?

... just 'graphs'?

15:18:31 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:18:31 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree with sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to disagree with sandro

15:18:38 <satya> graph literal is interpreted differently from named graph

Satya Sahoo: graph literal is interpreted differently from named graph

15:18:41 <pgroth> ack JimM

Paul Groth: ack JimM

15:18:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:18:47 <sandro> (it's possible to do this in RDF if you define your own vocab, but there's no standard/interoperability)

Sandro Hawke: (it's possible to do this in RDF if you define your own vocab, but there's no standard/interoperability)

15:19:13 <Curt> JimMcCusker: could use graph hashes to handle referring to the graph

James McCusker: could use graph hashes to handle referring to the graph

15:19:16 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

15:19:22 <Curt> JimMcCusker: there are solutions out there

James McCusker: there are solutions out there

15:19:26 <GK> @JimM - sounds like a possibility I had in mind...

Graham Klyne: @JimM - sounds like a possibility I had in mind...

15:19:29 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya

15:19:32 <Curt> satya: we are conflating two issues

Satya Sahoo: we are conflating two issues

15:19:53 <sandro> JimM, please suggest them to public-rdf-prov?

Sandro Hawke: JimM, please suggest them to public-rdf-prov?

15:19:57 <Curt> ... when you refer to a URL, the reponse you get today is different from tomorrow

... when you refer to a URL, the reponse you get today is different from tomorrow

15:20:11 <Curt> ... if the application needs the version, that can be modeled

... if the application needs the version, that can be modeled

15:20:25 <Curt> ... it is a modeling issue

... it is a modeling issue

15:20:33 <sandro> (it can be modeled, but we need a standard for how to model it, otherwise there is no interop.)

Sandro Hawke: (it can be modeled, but we need a standard for how to model it, otherwise there is no interop.)

15:20:33 <GK> @satya +1

Graham Klyne: @satya +1

15:20:34 <Curt> ... don't mix up that with changes needed to RDF model

... don't mix up that with changes needed to RDF model

15:20:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:20:45 <JimMcCusker> https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/wiki/frbr:mccusker2012parallel

James McCusker: https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/wiki/frbr:mccusker2012parallel

15:20:52 <tlebo> I'm wondering how "provenance of contents in named graphs" differs from "provenance of contents in files on disk".

Timothy Lebo: I'm wondering how "provenance of contents in named graphs" differs from "provenance of contents in files on disk".

15:21:01 <Curt> pgroth: thanks sandro -- we'll try to help

Paul Groth: thanks sandro -- we'll try to help

15:21:04 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure it does.

Sandro Hawke: tlebo, I'm not sure it does.

15:21:06 <pgroth> Topic: Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model

5. Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model

Summary: Discussed mapping, conceptual model will drive formal model, but constraints of technology and ambiguities may require iteration with conceptual model to clarify concepts and ensure they can be adequately represented. Primary target of the formal model is the semantic web stack, but the conceptual model will also enable other technologies, keep interoperability in mind as the models develop.

<Curt> Summary: Discussed mapping, conceptual model will drive formal model, but constraints of technology and ambiguities may require iteration with conceptual model to clarify concepts and ensure they can be adequately represented.  Primary target of the formal model is the semantic web stack, but the conceptual model will also enable other technologies, keep interoperability in mind as the models develop.
15:21:07 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel

James McCusker: Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel

15:21:24 <GK> @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ

Graham Klyne: @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ

15:21:28 <JimMyers> One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy...

James Myers: One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy...

15:21:33 <sandro> tlebo, maybe the tools are different.   n3 has nice syntax for it.

Sandro Hawke: tlebo, maybe the tools are different. n3 has nice syntax for it.

15:22:04 <Curt> paolo: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model

Paolo Missier: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model

15:22:14 <Curt> ... conceptual model will drive formal model

... conceptual model will drive formal model

15:22:16 <JimMcCusker> sandro, I can take that as an action.

James McCusker: sandro, I can take that as an action.

15:22:35 <Curt> ... if OWL2 falls short, we can address

... if OWL2 falls short, we can address

15:22:55 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.213.290.aaee

15:23:09 <Curt> ... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model

... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model

15:23:21 <smiles> zakim, ??24 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??24 is me

15:23:21 <Zakim> sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24'

15:23:22 <Curt> ... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like

... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like

15:23:27 <Curt> ... consider other direction

... consider other direction

15:23:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:23:30 <smiles> zakim, ??P24 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P24 is me

15:23:30 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

15:23:58 <Curt> ... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model

... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model

15:24:21 <Curt> satya: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL

Satya Sahoo: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL

15:24:37 <Curt> ... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities

... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities

15:24:45 <Curt> ... they have proposed ways to model information

... they have proposed ways to model information

15:24:56 <Curt> ... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there

... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there

15:25:03 <Curt> ... are subtle differences

... are subtle differences

15:25:30 <Curt> paolo: some things won't map into OWL2 easily

Paolo Missier: some things won't map into OWL2 easily

15:25:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me

Yogesh Simmhan: zakim, +1.213 is me

15:25:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh; got it

15:25:38 <Luc> q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

Luc Moreau: q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

15:25:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:25:58 <Curt> satya: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages

Satya Sahoo: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages

15:26:11 <GK> @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now

Graham Klyne: @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now

15:26:18 <Curt> ... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification

... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification

15:26:43 <Curt> ... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it

... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it

15:27:08 <GK> q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

15:27:11 <Curt> paolo: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed?

Paolo Missier: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed?

15:27:30 <khalidbelhajjame> The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best"

Khalid Belhajjame: The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best"

15:27:50 <Curt> ... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack

... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack

15:28:20 <GK> @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL

Graham Klyne: @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL

15:28:31 <Paolo> Q?

Paolo Missier: Q?

15:28:39 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, agreed

Khalid Belhajjame: @Graham, agreed

15:29:06 <Curt> satya: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first

Satya Sahoo: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first

15:29:08 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:29:08 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

15:29:14 <Curt> ... then we'll address OWL2 representation

... then we'll address OWL2 representation

15:29:23 <pgroth> can't hear you well

Paul Groth: can't hear you well

15:29:30 <GK> @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts

Graham Klyne: @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts

15:29:32 <Curt> Luc: <breaking up>

Luc Moreau: <breaking up>

15:29:44 <stain> Luc - we can't hear you well

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Luc - we can't hear you well

15:29:49 <Paolo> Luc going dalek...

Paolo Missier: Luc going dalek...

15:29:56 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK

15:29:59 <Curt> Luc: provenance ... something ...

Luc Moreau: provenance ... something ...

15:30:59 <Curt> pgroth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies

Paul Groth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies

15:31:17 <Curt> ... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across

... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across

15:31:24 <Luc> thanks paul

Luc Moreau: thanks paul

15:31:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:31:54 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:32:21 <Luc> my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability

Luc Moreau: my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability

15:32:32 <Curt> satya: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using

Satya Sahoo: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using

15:32:49 <Curt> ... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack

... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack

15:32:52 <pgroth> graham you on the phone?

Paul Groth: graham you on the phone?

15:33:02 <Curt> ... it may not be possible to please every technology

... it may not be possible to please every technology

15:33:33 <Curt> paolo: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack?

Paolo Missier: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack?

15:33:44 <Curt> paolo: that can affect our design choices

Paolo Missier: that can affect our design choices

15:33:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:34:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

15:34:11 <Curt> satya: agreed, there are semantic web constraints

Satya Sahoo: agreed, there are semantic web constraints

15:34:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful

Khalid Belhajjame: Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful

15:35:00 <Curt> ... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation

... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation

15:35:32 <Curt> paolo: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check

Paolo Missier: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check

15:35:35 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:35:39 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:35:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

15:35:40 <stain> and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about

Stian Soiland-Reyes: and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about

15:35:47 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6

15:35:48 <dgarijo> @khalid: I think you're right

Daniel Garijo: @khalid: I think you're right

15:36:38 <Curt> GK: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack?

Graham Klyne: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack?

15:36:39 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:37:03 <Luc> as the ONLY stack supported?

Luc Moreau: as the ONLY stack supported?

15:37:11 <Curt> pgroth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2

Paul Groth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2

15:37:28 <Curt> satya: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together

Satya Sahoo: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together

15:37:59 <Curt> pgroth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies

Paul Groth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies

15:38:12 <GK> @Luc:  as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others.

Graham Klyne: @Luc: as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others.

15:38:22 <satya> @GK +!

Satya Sahoo: @GK +!

15:38:24 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:38:35 <Curt> ... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies

... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies

15:38:36 <Luc> from charter:

Luc Moreau: from charter:

15:38:38 <Luc> The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today.

Luc Moreau: The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today.

15:39:05 <Curt> paolo: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern

Paolo Missier: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern

15:39:12 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

15:39:14 <tlebo> btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value.

Timothy Lebo: btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value.

15:39:18 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya

15:39:32 <Curt> satya: ideally we should just support semantic web

Satya Sahoo: ideally we should just support semantic web

15:39:48 <Curt> ... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things

... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things

15:39:57 <Luc> why do we have a conceptual model then?

Luc Moreau: why do we have a conceptual model then?

15:39:59 <Curt> ... we should keep that in mind

... we should keep that in mind

15:40:10 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

15:40:14 <tlebo> @luc, regarding "just RDF"?

Timothy Lebo: @luc, regarding "just RDF"?

15:40:20 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame

15:40:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:40:39 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies

Khalid Belhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies

15:40:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:41:03 <Curt> ... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies

... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies

15:41:12 <Luc> thanks khalid

Luc Moreau: thanks khalid

15:41:28 <Curt> pgroth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints

Paul Groth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints

15:41:50 <GK> @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too)

Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too)

15:41:53 <Curt> ... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break

... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break

15:41:53 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:41:59 <stain> but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost

Stian Soiland-Reyes: but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost

15:41:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

15:42:13 <Curt> paolo: modeling of roles still needs work

Paolo Missier: modeling of roles still needs work

15:42:30 <Curt> ... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me

... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me

15:42:56 <Curt> ... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications

... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications

15:42:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:42:59 <GK> @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF

Graham Klyne: @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF

15:42:59 <Luc> if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology?

Luc Moreau: if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology?

15:43:33 <satya> @GK +1

Satya Sahoo: @GK +1

15:43:38 <Curt> pgroth: we need to see where things are hard to represent

Paul Groth: we need to see where things are hard to represent

15:43:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK +1

Khalid Belhajjame: @GK +1

15:44:02 <Curt> ... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode

... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode

15:44:12 <Zakim> +stain

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain

15:44:20 <Curt> paolo: it is an ongoing process,

Paolo Missier: it is an ongoing process,

15:44:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:44:25 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

15:44:49 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:44:53 <Curt> satya: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group

Satya Sahoo: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group

15:44:54 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:45:15 <Curt> Luc: how do we progress?

Luc Moreau: how do we progress?

15:45:35 <Curt> pgroth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model

Paul Groth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model

15:45:38 <Luc> proposal: park roles for now, and move on

PROPOSED: park roles for now, and move on

15:45:57 <Curt> ... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that

... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that

15:45:57 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:46:03 <Luc> ack

Luc Moreau: ack

15:46:05 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:46:33 <Curt> satya: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy

Satya Sahoo: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy

15:46:51 <Curt> ... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model

... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model

15:46:58 <Luc> why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'?

Luc Moreau: why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'?

15:47:00 <GK> @satya: +1

Graham Klyne: @satya: +1

15:47:01 <Curt> ... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model

... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model

15:47:09 <Curt> ... iterative feedback to make them match

... iterative feedback to make them match

15:47:29 <Curt> satya: roles is one issues, there are others

Satya Sahoo: roles is one issues, there are others

15:47:51 <Curt> satya: e.g. versioning perspectives

Satya Sahoo: e.g. versioning perspectives

15:47:52 <GK> q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

15:48:07 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

15:48:09 <Luc> saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document

Luc Moreau: saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document

15:48:12 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me

Jörn Hees: zakim, ??p5 is me

15:48:12 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jorn; got it

15:48:17 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:48:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

15:48:42 <Curt> GK: difficulty is in coming to understanding.  latest version of the model has helped clarify some things

Graham Klyne: difficulty is in coming to understanding. latest version of the model has helped clarify some things

15:48:48 <satya> sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis

Satya Sahoo: sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis

15:48:57 <Curt> ... recent direction has helped discussion progress

... recent direction has helped discussion progress

15:49:00 <khalidbelhajjame> GK: I agree, the last version is much clearer

Graham Klyne: I agree, the last version is much clearer [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ]

15:49:21 <dgarijo> I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion.

Daniel Garijo: I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion.

15:49:26 <Curt> pgroth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them

Paul Groth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them

15:49:39 <pgroth> Topic: Conceptual Model

6. Conceptual Model

Summary: New iteration release for discussion. Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately.

<Curt> Summary: New iteration release for discussion.  Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately.
15:49:49 <satya> @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :)

Satya Sahoo: @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :)

15:49:51 <Curt> paolo: New iteration released for discussion

Paolo Missier: New iteration released for discussion

15:49:58 <Curt> paolo: few comments so far.

Paolo Missier: few comments so far.

15:50:09 <Curt> ... that version has many improvements that address issues

... that version has many improvements that address issues

15:50:15 <dgarijo> @Satya :)

Daniel Garijo: @Satya :)

15:50:19 <Curt> ... several things resolved pending review

... several things resolved pending review

15:50:45 <Curt> ... addressing Khalid's comments

... addressing Khalid's comments

15:50:53 <Curt> ... process is converging

... process is converging

15:51:11 <Curt> ... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon

... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon

15:51:20 <Curt> ... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things

... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things

15:51:34 <Curt> ... planning to address remaining issues

... planning to address remaining issues

15:51:35 <GK> +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :)

Graham Klyne: +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :)

15:52:08 <Curt> ... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others

... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others

15:52:09 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

Luc Moreau: the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

15:52:23 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

Luc Moreau: the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

15:52:26 <satya> @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report?

Satya Sahoo: @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report?

15:52:33 <Curt> ... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can

... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can

15:52:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:52:49 <Curt> ... issue 89, 99 need work

... ISSUE-89, 99 need work

15:52:54 <Zakim> -Vinh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Vinh

15:53:01 <GK> Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss

Graham Klyne: Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss

15:53:11 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:53:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft?

Paul Groth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft?

15:53:47 <Curt> Luc: Yes, correct

Luc Moreau: Yes, correct

15:54:12 <Curt> Luc: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release

Luc Moreau: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release

15:54:13 <GK> q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus

Graham Klyne: q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus

15:54:23 <Curt> pgroth: please raise major blocks asap

Paul Groth: please raise major blocks asap

15:54:40 <Curt> GK: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open

Graham Klyne: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open

15:54:47 <satya> @GK - I agree

Satya Sahoo: @GK - I agree

15:54:51 <Curt> pgroth: correct

Paul Groth: correct

15:54:53 <sandro> agreed.    wd does not need to be consensus.

Sandro Hawke: agreed. wd does not need to be consensus.

15:54:55 <Luc> i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed

Luc Moreau: i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed

15:55:18 <sandro> but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue.

Sandro Hawke: but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue.

15:55:20 <Curt> pgroth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers,

Paul Groth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers,

15:55:27 <Curt> ... prior to release to public, raise them now

... prior to release to public, raise them now

15:55:55 <Curt> GK: are we ready to release and ask for public comment.

Graham Klyne: are we ready to release and ask for public comment.

15:56:08 <Curt> paolo: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of?

Paolo Missier: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of?

15:56:33 <Curt> paolo: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags

Paolo Missier: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags

15:56:55 <Luc> @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on?

Luc Moreau: @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on?

15:56:56 <GK> I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :)

Graham Klyne: I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :)

15:57:10 <pgroth> Topic: Formal Model

7. Formal Model

Summary: New release addressing many issues, some more remain. It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example.

<Curt> Summary: New release addressing many issues, some more remain.  It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example.
15:57:13 <GK> @luc I'll try

Graham Klyne: @luc I'll try

15:57:32 <Luc> @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow

Luc Moreau: @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow

15:57:38 <Curt> satya: formal model has been updated with help

Satya Sahoo: formal model has been updated with help

15:57:58 <Curt> ... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped

... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped

15:58:11 <Curt> ... pre-release to this group soon

... pre-release to this group soon

15:58:39 <Curt> ... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful

... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful

15:58:57 <Curt> ... scientific workflow extension to be included

... scientific workflow extension to be included

15:59:08 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

15:59:25 <Curt> ... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model

... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model

15:59:35 <Curt> ... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model

... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model

16:00:01 <Curt> ... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model

... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model

16:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

Khalid Belhajjame: +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

16:00:13 <Curt> ... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes

... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes

16:00:17 <Curt> ... iterative process

... iterative process

16:00:27 <Paolo> Q?

Paolo Missier: Q?

16:00:29 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q-

16:00:34 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame

16:00:34 <Zakim> khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

Zakim IRC Bot: khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

16:00:48 <JimMcCusker> @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that.

James McCusker: @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that.

16:00:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:00:57 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset?

Khalid Belhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset?

16:01:18 <satya> @Jim - thanks

Satya Sahoo: @Jim - thanks

16:01:22 <Curt> pgroth: a correct set is more important than to be complete

Paul Groth: a correct set is more important than to be complete

16:01:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:01:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, thanks

Khalid Belhajjame: @Paul, thanks

16:01:35 <satya> @Paul: thanks

Satya Sahoo: @Paul: thanks

16:01:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:01:43 <dgarijo> @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model.

Daniel Garijo: @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model.

16:02:03 <satya> @Daniel: no

Satya Sahoo: @Daniel: no

16:02:07 <Curt> pgroth: please get comments on everything in

Paul Groth: please get comments on everything in

16:02:12 <Curt> ... need to vote on public releases

... need to vote on public releases

16:02:13 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo

16:02:15 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles

16:02:16 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

16:02:18 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh

16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

16:02:24 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

16:02:26 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

16:02:28 <Zakim> -JimMyers

Zakim IRC Bot: -JimMyers

16:02:30 <Zakim> -jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: -jorn

16:02:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:02:42 <Zakim> -??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6

16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:02:48 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items



Formatted by CommonScribe