A discussion was had about had around ISSUE 207 on where start and end times should occur in the model. No decision was taken.
James presented a strawman proposal for a formal semantics of provenance. The group positively recieved the proposal and agreed to make it a deliverable of the project. The prov-sem was seen a mechanism to to encode proper provenance. Additionally, he presented the ProvRDF mappings page that provides a systematic means to map prov-dm to prov-o.
The discussion focused on interoprability of implementations and how the group would demonstrate interoprability. Guus suggested we look at the skos approach to demonstrating interoprability. A survey was taken of the group about who was planning on implementing the spec. 8 people said they had plans or were already under way. It was agreed that we would take a dual approach to demonstrating interoprability. One would be a survey of implementations that shows that every concept is used in at least two different implementations (like skos). The second would be to identify pairs of implementations that can excahnge provenance. The implementation task force would be activated to begin building test harnesses based on the examples cataloged by Tim.
The session focused on planning. To facilatate mapping of prov-o and prov-dm, the group agreed to adopt the use of the ProvRDF mappings page to synchronize the two documents after the ontology reached the level of prov-dm WD3. To facilate this usage, it was agreed to ensure that the ProvRDF mappings page was also aligned with prov wd3. It was agreed that the editors would draft an updated version of prov-aq to address all outstanding issues. Additionally, the group agreed to start producing an xml schema. The editors of the prov-dm agreed to draft an simplified introduction to it reflecting the groups desire for simplfication. Finally, Paul agreed to summarize the F2F for an email to the whole group as well as in a blog post.
08:12:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc ←
08:12:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
08:12:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
08:12:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
08:12:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
08:12:36 <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2012
08:12:40 <Stian> tlebo: we get the same
Timothy Lebo: we get the same [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
08:12:42 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
<pgroth> Guest: Ivan (ivan) Herman, W3C
<pgroth> Guest: Guus (guus) Schreiber, W3C RDF WG Chair
08:12:42 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM already started ←
08:13:10 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there? ←
08:13:10 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan. ←
08:13:17 <ivan> zakim, who is on the call
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is on the call ←
08:13:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', ivan ←
08:13:23 <ivan> zakim, who is on the call?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is on the call? ←
08:13:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P11 ←
08:13:38 <ivan> is anybody on the call already?
Ivan Herman: is anybody on the call already? ←
08:13:40 <ivan> who is P11
Ivan Herman: who is P11 ←
08:13:42 <ivan> ?
Ivan Herman: ? ←
08:13:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F2Timetable
08:13:57 <tlebo> I don't know.
Timothy Lebo: I don't know. ←
08:14:07 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
08:14:12 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo
(Scribe set to Daniel Garijo)
08:14:27 <ivan> tlebo: you are not on zakim, right?
Timothy Lebo: you are not on zakim, right? [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
08:14:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
08:15:01 <tlebo> it's 3:15 here
Timothy Lebo: it's 3:15 here ←
08:16:25 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, ??P11, in PROV_f2f()3:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, ??P11, in PROV_f2f()3:00AM ←
08:16:26 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended ←
08:16:26 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.315.724.aaaa, [VrijeUni], tlebo, [IPcaller], +1.781.899.aabb, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.315.724.aaaa, [VrijeUni], tlebo, [IPcaller], +1.781.899.aabb, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, Ivan ←
08:16:49 <dgarijo> Luc: session on prov-dm
Luc Moreau: session on prov-dm ←
<pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm continued
Summary: A discussion was had about had around ISSUE 207 on where start and end times should occur in the model. No decision was taken.
<pgroth> Summary: A discussion was had about had around ISSUE 207 on where start and end times should occur in the model. No decision was taken.
08:16:52 <ivan> zakim, this is prov
Ivan Herman: zakim, this is prov ←
08:16:52 <Zakim> ivan, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be prov".
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be prov". ←
08:17:03 <ivan> zakim, this will be prov
Ivan Herman: zakim, this will be prov ←
08:17:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 17 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 17 minutes ago ←
08:17:16 <dgarijo> ... would like a clarification on the prov-o resolution yesterday
... would like a clarification on the prov-o resolution yesterday ←
08:17:31 <Stian> Zakim, start prov
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, start prov ←
08:17:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start prov', Stian
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'start prov', Stian ←
08:17:37 <dgarijo> ... prov-o team will have to remember that there are "concepts at risk"
... prov-o team will have to remember that there are "concepts at risk" ←
08:17:52 <dgarijo> ... there is an issue around wasAsociatedWith
... there is an issue around wasAsociatedWith ←
08:18:08 <dgarijo> ... whether the agent should be optional or not
... whether the agent should be optional or not ←
08:18:26 <dgarijo> ... those issues are inserted in the document
... those issues are inserted in the document ←
08:18:34 <tlebo> (Can I get onto a skyper that is NOT the scribe?)
Timothy Lebo: (Can I get onto a skyper that is NOT the scribe?) ←
08:18:48 <dgarijo> ... there is no point trying to encode this into prov-o
... there is no point trying to encode this into prov-o ←
08:19:13 <tlebo> Thanks, Khalid.
Timothy Lebo: Thanks, Khalid. ←
08:19:33 <Stian> Zakim, this is PROV_f2f
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, this is PROV_f2f ←
08:19:33 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f".
Zakim IRC Bot: Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f". ←
08:19:40 <Stian> Zakim, this is PROV_f2f()3:00AM
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, this is PROV_f2f()3:00AM ←
08:19:40 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f()3:00AM".
Zakim IRC Bot: Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f()3:00AM". ←
08:19:48 <Stian> future of AI..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: future of AI.. ←
08:19:51 <dgarijo> ... in this session we want to solve a number of issues flagged in the tracker
... in this session we want to solve a number of issues flagged in the tracker ←
08:20:04 <dgarijo> ... in order to make some progress in the future version of the WD
... in order to make some progress in the future version of the WD ←
08:20:07 <tlebo> (Tim hears now)
Timothy Lebo: (Tim hears now) ←
08:20:34 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/raised
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/raised ←
08:20:45 <dgarijo> ... issue 207
08:20:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/207
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/207 ←
08:21:48 <dgarijo> ... when we talk about activities we say that there is a start event and an end event. The place holder with time is not with the event, but with the activity itself
... when we talk about activities we say that there is a start event and an end event. The place holder with time is not with the event, but with the activity itself ←
08:21:57 <dgarijo> ... There is a bit of inconsistency
... There is a bit of inconsistency ←
08:22:22 <dgarijo> ... can we move starttime with the start event
... can we move starttime with the start event ←
08:22:24 <GK> (This issue of start/end times is also alluded to in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/229)
Graham Klyne: (This issue of start/end times is also alluded to in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/229) ←
08:22:39 <dgarijo> ... can we move start/end away from the activity?
... can we move start/end away from the activity? ←
08:22:48 <dgarijo> ... feedback?
... feedback? ←
08:23:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:23:14 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
08:23:15 <dgarijo> ... prov-o team, is that a big change for the ontology?
... prov-o team, is that a big change for the ontology? ←
08:23:15 <Stian> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
08:23:39 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
08:23:56 <dgarijo> tlebo: I like the proposal to make it consitent.
Timothy Lebo: I like the proposal to make it consitent. ←
08:24:31 <dgarijo> ... concerned about people wanting to add this directly to the activity. Would it be possible to have both?
... concerned about people wanting to add this directly to the activity. Would it be possible to have both? ←
08:24:50 <ivan> q+ to refer to a minor issue on time
Ivan Herman: q+ to refer to a minor issue on time ←
08:25:20 <dgarijo> luc: another example on scruffy vs not scruffy. From a data model view is not useful to have many placeholders for the same info
Luc Moreau: another example on scruffy vs not scruffy. From a data model view is not useful to have many placeholders for the same info ←
08:25:25 <ivan> ack tlebo
Ivan Herman: ack tlebo ←
08:25:31 <tlebo> +1 danger for inconsistency
Timothy Lebo: +1 danger for inconsistency ←
08:25:37 <dgarijo> ... risk for inconsistency
... risk for inconsistency ←
08:26:04 <dgarijo> ... is it just sintactic sugar?
... is it just sintactic sugar? ←
08:26:29 <dgarijo> tlebo: it reduces query time. You are running to a lot of practical reasons
Timothy Lebo: it reduces query time. You are running to a lot of practical reasons ←
08:26:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:26:43 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
08:26:43 <tlebo> and bnodes don't consolidate across merges.
Timothy Lebo: and bnodes don't consolidate across merges. ←
08:26:46 <Luc> ack stian
Luc Moreau: ack stian ←
08:27:23 <dgarijo> stian: a destruction event would complete the cycle.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: a destruction event would complete the cycle. ←
08:27:42 <dgarijo> ... activity and entity had start and end.
... activity and entity had start and end. ←
08:28:08 <dgarijo> ... it would be very good to relate these events
... it would be very good to relate these events ←
08:28:24 <dgarijo> ... without having necessarily to refer to time
... without having necessarily to refer to time ←
08:28:38 <Luc> why not say id a Activity, aStartEvent ...
Luc Moreau: why not say id a Activity, aStartEvent ... ←
08:29:14 <GK> q+ to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used. This convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology.
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used. This convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology. ←
08:29:38 <dgarijo> khalid: prov.dm has to be consistent. not having the notion of event would be a problem?
Khalid Belhajjame: prov.dm has to be consistent. not having the notion of event would be a problem? ←
08:29:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:29:51 <dgarijo> ... it would be a simpler ontology
... it would be a simpler ontology ←
08:29:58 <tlebo> e.g. :activity prov:hasStart [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ]; prov:hasEnd [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ]
Timothy Lebo: e.g. :activity prov:hasStart [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ]; prov:hasEnd [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ] ←
08:30:12 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
08:30:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:30:45 <dgarijo> stian: if you want to associate anything extra to the event (how the time was measured) then you are not able to do so.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if you want to associate anything extra to the event (how the time was measured) then you are not able to do so. ←
08:32:20 <GK> Hmmm... I'm sure PatH will do a spendid job, but isn't doing time out of scope for RDF group?
Graham Klyne: Hmmm... I'm sure PatH will do a spendid job, but isn't doing time out of scope for RDF group? ←
08:32:31 <dgarijo> ivan: 2 things: 1) this has been a discussion on the rdf group. What they come up with may be useful for you, so it might be good to postpone the resolution and reuse what they decide.
Ivan Herman: 2 things: 1) this has been a discussion on the rdf group. What they come up with may be useful for you, so it might be good to postpone the resolution and reuse what they decide. ←
08:33:21 <dgarijo> ... 2) Good to know that the ??? document is coming up.
... 2) Good to know that the ??? document is coming up. ←
08:33:41 <dgarijo> ... someone in the rdf working group was reviewing the changes
... someone in the rdf working group was reviewing the changes ←
08:34:11 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
Khalid Belhajjame: q? ←
08:34:22 <dgarijo> luc: would it be useful to share this feedback to the group?
Luc Moreau: would it be useful to share this feedback to the group? ←
08:34:26 <Luc> ack iv
Luc Moreau: ack iv ←
08:34:26 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to refer to a minor issue on time
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, you wanted to refer to a minor issue on time ←
08:34:29 <dgarijo> ivan: no problem
Ivan Herman: no problem ←
08:34:52 <tlebo> e.g. 2 "scruff") :activity prov:hasStart "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; prov:hasEnd "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
Timothy Lebo: e.g. 2 "scruff") :activity prov:hasStart "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; prov:hasEnd "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime . ←
08:35:01 <kai> ivan: if you use xsd dates which you should, look at the new draft, not the old document.
Ivan Herman: if you use xsd dates which you should, look at the new draft, not the old document. [ Scribe Assist by Kai Eckert ] ←
08:35:04 <dgarijo> smiles: don't see a problem for having support for both types of provenance.
Simon Miles: don't see a problem for having support for both types of provenance. ←
08:35:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:35:34 <Luc> ack sm
Luc Moreau: ack sm ←
08:35:36 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
08:35:36 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used. This
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used. This ←
08:35:39 <Zakim> ... convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology.
Zakim IRC Bot: ... convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology. ←
08:35:44 <dgarijo> stian: having both makes interoperability difficult
Stian Soiland-Reyes: having both makes interoperability difficult ←
08:35:55 <dgarijo> graham: +1 to simon's point
Graham Klyne: +1 to simon's point ←
08:36:21 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html Alex Hall's review of the XSD 1.1 and the influence on RDF
Ivan Herman: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html Alex Hall's review of the XSD 1.1 and the influence on RDF ←
08:36:24 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
08:36:40 <dgarijo> ... having them in prov-o doesn't mean that they are in the dm
... having them in prov-o doesn't mean that they are in the dm ←
08:36:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:36:53 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
08:36:57 <tlebo> +1 @pgroth, this truly does match our "qualified and unqualified" duality. "upgrade path"
Timothy Lebo: +1 @pgroth, this truly does match our "qualified and unqualified" duality. "upgrade path" ←
08:37:17 <tlebo> I think that makes a lot of sense.
Timothy Lebo: I think that makes a lot of sense. ←
08:37:21 <dgarijo> paul: +1 to that: in the ontology you have qualified and unqualified properties. So it is essentially the same thing
Paul Groth: +1 to that: in the ontology you have qualified and unqualified properties. So it is essentially the same thing ←
08:38:09 <tlebo> it's how I wrote http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O
Timothy Lebo: it's how I wrote http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O ←
08:38:15 <tlebo> (the "upgrade path")
Timothy Lebo: (the "upgrade path") ←
08:38:29 <dgarijo> ivan: the separation between simple/complicated qualifications is not visible in the document
Ivan Herman: the separation between simple/complicated qualifications is not visible in the document ←
08:38:50 <dgarijo> ... it is not highlighted
... it is not highlighted ←
08:38:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:38:57 <dgarijo> in the primer/prov-o
in the primer/prov-o ←
08:39:31 <Stian> but it's not that different from current syntax: :activity prov:startedAt [ time:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; ] ; - as compared to upgrading to qualifiedX your shorthand does not add much
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but it's not that different from current syntax: :activity prov:startedAt [ time:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; ] ; - as compared to upgrading to qualifiedX your shorthand does not add much ←
08:40:10 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
08:40:20 <dgarijo> luc: so we keep start /end for activities but no events?
Luc Moreau: so we keep start /end for activities but no events? ←
08:40:26 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
08:40:36 <dgarijo> activities can refer to time or to events
activities can refer to time or to events ←
08:41:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:42:01 <tlebo> +1 paul - the duality stays out of the DM, prov-o adds the duality (i.e. syntactic sugar)
Timothy Lebo: +1 paul - the duality stays out of the DM, prov-o adds the duality (i.e. syntactic sugar) ←
08:42:07 <GK> PGroth: duality only in the ontology, not in the DM
Paul Groth: duality only in the ontology, not in the DM [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
08:42:09 <dgarijo> paul: the prov-o has a duality that the dm doesn't have
Paul Groth: the prov-o has a duality that the dm doesn't have ←
08:42:12 <GK> +1 to paul
Graham Klyne: +1 to paul ←
08:42:16 <pgroth> @tlebo agree
Paul Groth: @tlebo agree ←
08:42:21 <tlebo> +1 @luc
Timothy Lebo: +1 @luc ←
08:42:29 <dgarijo> luc: for dm events have time and activities are related to events
Luc Moreau: for dm events have time and activities are related to events ←
08:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
Khalid Belhajjame: q? ←
08:44:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:44:24 <dgarijo> graham: give the basic voc and see how it evolves
Graham Klyne: give the basic voc and see how it evolves ←
08:44:33 <tlebo> @ivan, sorry, I meant prov:inXSDDateTime
Timothy Lebo: @ivan, sorry, I meant prov:inXSDDateTime ←
08:44:34 <Luc> ack ivan
Luc Moreau: ack ivan ←
08:44:42 <khalidbelhajjame> do we need to have time at all in prov-dm, wouldn't the notion of event be enough?
Khalid Belhajjame: do we need to have time at all in prov-dm, wouldn't the notion of event be enough? ←
08:44:45 <dgarijo> ivan: please don't use the 2006 WD of the ontology.
Ivan Herman: please don't use the 2006 WD of the ontology. ←
08:45:17 <dgarijo> @kahlid: the events (usage, for instance) have time..
@kahlid: the events (usage, for instance) have time.. ←
08:45:17 <GK> ^^ == time ontology (?)
Graham Klyne: ^^ == time ontology (?) ←
08:45:19 <Stian> is a start/end event in the universe of discourse?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: is a start/end event in the universe of discourse? ←
08:45:26 <Stian> we'll clone the few things from time: we're currently using
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we'll clone the few things from time: we're currently using ←
08:45:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:45:30 <tlebo> @ivan, thanks, will mirror them into prov namespace.
Timothy Lebo: @ivan, thanks, will mirror them into prov namespace. ←
08:46:06 <tlebo> @stain, YOU were using the 2006 time >:-{
Timothy Lebo: @stain, YOU were using the 2006 time >:-{ ←
08:46:20 <Stian> Yes! But it was a good placeholder!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Yes! But it was a good placeholder! ←
08:46:24 <Stian> better than nothing at all
Stian Soiland-Reyes: better than nothing at all ←
08:46:31 <dgarijo> jcheney: had some issues about events too. Would it be ok if we don't make any formal determinations until I solved those?
James Cheney: had some issues about events too. Would it be ok if we don't make any formal determinations until I solved those? ←
08:46:59 <Stian> @tlebo - will you do the job to update the OWL file? Should be almost just a search replace of &time;
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo - will you do the job to update the OWL file? Should be almost just a search replace of &time; ←
08:47:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:47:16 <Luc> ack jc
Luc Moreau: ack jc ←
08:47:27 <tlebo> @stian sure
Timothy Lebo: @stian sure ←
08:47:29 <dgarijo> luc: not enough resolution
Luc Moreau: not enough resolution ←
08:47:30 <Stian> thanks :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: thanks :) ←
08:48:31 <Stian> That's http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Start-End
Stian Soiland-Reyes: That's http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Start-End ←
08:48:41 <tlebo> @stian http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/232
Timothy Lebo: @stian http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/232 ←
08:49:50 <dgarijo> luc: wasStartedBy as a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith. Woudln't it better to have a start/end event?
Luc Moreau: wasStartedBy as a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith. Woudln't it better to have a start/end event? ←
08:50:14 <GK> q+ to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)?
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)? ←
08:50:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:50:32 <Stian> this starts sounding like Tim's "events are a kind of activity" argument - if agents can be associated with a start event, etc
Stian Soiland-Reyes: this starts sounding like Tim's "events are a kind of activity" argument - if agents can be associated with a start event, etc ←
08:51:21 <dgarijo> GK: Is event the right place to make the association? Event is more like a timestamp
Graham Klyne: Is event the right place to make the association? Event is more like a timestamp ←
08:51:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
08:52:07 <dgarijo> we had 4 types of events
we had 4 types of events ←
08:53:28 <Stian> is it now not just 2 events? Creation and Destruction
Stian Soiland-Reyes: is it now not just 2 events? Creation and Destruction ←
08:53:29 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
08:53:29 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)?
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)? ←
08:54:04 <dgarijo> khalid: disagrees with GK. The event type is the start of an activity.
Khalid Belhajjame: disagrees with GK. The event type is the start of an activity. ←
08:54:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:54:26 <Luc> ack khalid
Luc Moreau: ack khalid ←
08:54:29 <Stian> (far out there) if an activity was created (ie. started) - then that could have been caused by another activity (that of an agent)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (far out there) if an activity was created (ie. started) - then that could have been caused by another activity (that of an agent) ←
08:54:41 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
08:55:15 <dgarijo> tim: disagrees with wasStartedBy being a specialization of association
Timothy Lebo: disagrees with wasStartedBy being a specialization of association ←
08:55:42 <dgarijo> ... starting an activity is like being responsible for it
... starting an activity is like being responsible for it ←
08:56:16 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
08:56:32 <dgarijo> luc: we really don't have start and end of activities right now.
Luc Moreau: we really don't have start and end of activities right now. ←
08:56:39 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
08:56:41 <dgarijo> ... responsability is another topic
... responsability is another topic ←
08:56:59 <dgarijo> ... I just didn't want to go there now.
... I just didn't want to go there now. ←
08:57:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:57:27 <dgarijo> ... coming back to the original proposal, those records represent events
... coming back to the original proposal, those records represent events ←
08:57:48 <dgarijo> tim: are we talking about agents or events starting the activity
Timothy Lebo: are we talking about agents or events starting the activity ←
08:57:52 <khalidbelhajjame> I think that there are two points here that we need to reflect on separatly: i)- do we need to encode the start/end of activities as events? ii)- do we still need to have wasStartedBy to specify that an egent was responsible for startng an activity
Khalid Belhajjame: I think that there are two points here that we need to reflect on separatly: i)- do we need to encode the start/end of activities as events? ii)- do we still need to have wasStartedBy to specify that an egent was responsible for startng an activity ←
08:57:56 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
08:58:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: wasstartedBY vs wasStartedAT
Paul Groth: wasstartedBY vs wasStartedAT ←
08:58:56 <dgarijo> ... people are confused by both.
... people are confused by both. ←
08:58:58 <jcheney> what about just "started" and "ended"?
James Cheney: what about just "started" and "ended"? ←
08:59:21 <Stian> (also far out) if Generation/Usage/Started/Ended are activities, then agents can be associated/responsible just like with other activities
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (also far out) if Generation/Usage/Started/Ended are activities, then agents can be associated/responsible just like with other activities ←
08:59:33 <jcheney> you can name the agent in a "started" record, or not.
James Cheney: you can name the agent in a "started" record, or not. ←
08:59:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
08:59:44 <Stian> jcheney: make sense
James Cheney: make sense [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
08:59:45 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
08:59:51 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
09:00:01 <Luc> ack smil
Luc Moreau: ack smil ←
09:00:08 <dgarijo> smiles: +1 to tim and gk
Simon Miles: +1 to tim and gk ←
09:00:40 <dgarijo> ... you don't want to attach the agent to the event
... you don't want to attach the agent to the event ←
09:01:11 <jcheney> perhaps could define "wasStartedBy" as "evt was a start event for activity" and "agent was associated with evt"
James Cheney: perhaps could define "wasStartedBy" as "evt was a start event for activity" and "agent was associated with evt" ←
09:01:15 <Paolo> +1 for smiles, GK however that leaves wasGeneratedBy as an anomaly -- that /does/ require a generator to be expressed
Paolo Missier: +1 for smiles, GK however that leaves wasGeneratedBy as an anomaly -- that /does/ require a generator to be expressed ←
09:01:21 <jcheney> i think this = simon's proposal too
James Cheney: i think this = simon's proposal too ←
09:01:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:01:39 <dgarijo> paolo: agrees with smiles
Paolo Missier: agrees with smiles ←
09:01:48 <GK> q+ to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f. entity wasGeneratedBy activity)
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f. entity wasGeneratedBy activity) ←
09:01:59 <dgarijo> ... generation doesn't stand for itself
... generation doesn't stand for itself ←
09:02:06 <dgarijo> ... you just need a generator
... you just need a generator ←
09:02:20 <jcheney> could decompose generation into "event created" and "activity performed event"
James Cheney: could decompose generation into "event created" and "activity performed event" ←
09:02:25 <Stian> there was a seperate proposal to allow wasGenerated() without activity (to record entity start time)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: there was a seperate proposal to allow wasGenerated() without activity (to record entity start time) ←
09:03:06 <dgarijo> luc: would the agent be optional
Luc Moreau: would the agent be optional ←
09:03:22 <tlebo> +1 keep them separate, let one assert either or both.
Timothy Lebo: +1 keep them separate, let one assert either or both. ←
09:03:43 <Stian> (assuming we have destruction) - can an agent die before the activity start event - but still be responsible for starting?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (assuming we have destruction) - can an agent die before the activity start event - but still be responsible for starting? ←
09:04:39 <Stian> (I would argue yes)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (I would argue yes) ←
09:04:41 <dgarijo> ivan: why make it simple if you can make it complicated?
Ivan Herman: why make it simple if you can make it complicated? ←
09:05:13 <khalidbelhajjame> ?q
Khalid Belhajjame: ?q ←
09:05:19 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
Khalid Belhajjame: q? ←
09:05:19 <Stian> q?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q? ←
09:05:24 <Paolo> q-
Paolo Missier: q- ←
09:05:26 <dgarijo> luc: issue not entirely finished yet
Luc Moreau: issue not entirely finished yet ←
09:05:29 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
09:05:29 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f. ←
09:05:32 <Zakim> ... entity wasGeneratedBy activity)
Zakim IRC Bot: ... entity wasGeneratedBy activity) ←
09:06:08 <dgarijo> GK: there is a confusing about where the events are situated in the dm
Graham Klyne: there is a confusing about where the events are situated in the dm ←
09:06:22 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
09:06:42 <dgarijo> ... are events in the domain of discourse? or even the entities?
... are events in the domain of discourse? or even the entities? ←
09:07:20 <Stian> diagram at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#prov-dm-overview
Stian Soiland-Reyes: diagram at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#prov-dm-overview ←
09:07:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:07:43 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
09:07:59 <dgarijo> paolo: start and end record and then the activity record
Paolo Missier: start and end record and then the activity record ←
09:08:29 <dgarijo> ... you can't assert an activity record until the end of it
... you can't assert an activity record until the end of it ←
09:08:55 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
09:08:59 <tlebo> q+ to say that adding all of the optionals will make it more difficult to map to prov-o (or anything)
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that adding all of the optionals will make it more difficult to map to prov-o (or anything) ←
09:08:59 <Stian> ig activities are entities, then start/end events are same for both. currently wasGeneratedBy can say who started it - but currently says that the starter/creator was an activity (which is currently disjoint from agent)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ig activities are entities, then start/end events are same for both. currently wasGeneratedBy can say who started it - but currently says that the starter/creator was an activity (which is currently disjoint from agent) ←
09:09:11 <Stian> but why can activities only be created by agents, and entities only by activities?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but why can activities only be created by agents, and entities only by activities? ←
09:09:50 <GK> FWIW, CIDOC CRM uses events to mediate between other things, and events are considered to have duration, not be instantaneous. Just saying.
Graham Klyne: FWIW, CIDOC CRM uses events to mediate between other things, and events are considered to have duration, not be instantaneous. Just saying. ←
09:10:00 <Stian> If I create a document, as an agent I am (responsible for) generating it
Stian Soiland-Reyes: If I create a document, as an agent I am (responsible for) generating it ←
09:10:20 <dgarijo> luc: we are talking about exchanging prov info, at the moment of exchange you know the traces.
Luc Moreau: we are talking about exchanging prov info, at the moment of exchange you know the traces. ←
09:10:44 <tlebo> -1 @paolo
Timothy Lebo: -1 @paolo ←
09:11:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:11:40 <dgarijo> tim: problem with the optionals when doing the mappings to prov-o
Timothy Lebo: problem with the optionals when doing the mappings to prov-o ←
09:11:49 <dgarijo> ... smaller constructs are easier
... smaller constructs are easier ←
09:12:24 <GK> tlebo: for formal description, prefers more smaller constructs that can be linked together without optional bits. (was that right?)
Timothy Lebo: for formal description, prefers more smaller constructs that can be linked together without optional bits. (was that right?) [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
09:12:24 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
09:12:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
09:12:47 <Stian> +1 tlebo
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 tlebo ←
09:13:02 <dgarijo> luc: your proposal paolo, is not addressing our current issue.
Luc Moreau: your proposal paolo, is not addressing our current issue. ←
09:13:23 <dgarijo> ... it is mantaining the inconsistency
... it is mantaining the inconsistency ←
09:13:39 <GK> @tlebo I think your point argues for making events explicit in the model. Just saying.
Graham Klyne: @tlebo I think your point argues for making events explicit in the model. Just saying. ←
09:13:41 <Stian> Stian: There are two kinds of optionals in DM - the "Don't know now" implied optional, and the "Not applicable" (null) optional - in mapping to OWL we would need to distinguish between these
Stian Soiland-Reyes: There are two kinds of optionals in DM - the "Don't know now" implied optional, and the "Not applicable" (null) optional - in mapping to OWL we would need to distinguish between these [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
09:14:12 <tlebo> @GK I'm ok with that. Generation and Usage are the events.
Timothy Lebo: @GK I'm ok with that. Generation and Usage are the events. ←
09:14:25 <dgarijo> luc: a start record is not a representation of an event
Luc Moreau: a start record is not a representation of an event ←
09:15:18 <dgarijo> ... something could argue about starting events not being on the data model
... something could argue about starting events not being on the data model ←
09:15:20 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
09:15:25 <Stian> every entity has an (implied) generation event - but every activity does not (currently) have an implied started event
Stian Soiland-Reyes: every entity has an (implied) generation event - but every activity does not (currently) have an implied started event ←
09:15:41 <dgarijo> ... geenration events are on de UoD and start events are not
... geenration events are on de UoD and start events are not ←
09:15:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:15:54 <tlebo> q+ to propose startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time) and wasStartedBy(activity, agent)
Timothy Lebo: q+ to propose startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time) and wasStartedBy(activity, agent) ←
09:16:20 <Stian> tlebo: +1 - that's Simon's proposal
Timothy Lebo: +1 - that's Simon's proposal [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
09:16:34 <dgarijo> jcheney: instead of startedBy say started
James Cheney: instead of startedBy say started ←
09:16:37 <tlebo> @stian, then +1 simon.
Timothy Lebo: @stian, then +1 simon. ←
09:16:40 <Stian> if you say wasStartedBy - we know it was at startedAt
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if you say wasStartedBy - we know it was at startedAt ←
09:16:50 <Stian> tlebo: but do ask it :)
Timothy Lebo: but do ask it :) [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
09:16:50 <dgarijo> ... combining the event and the agent
... combining the event and the agent ←
09:17:00 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:17:24 <Luc> ack kh
Luc Moreau: ack kh ←
09:17:49 <dgarijo> khalid: what info should we attach to those events?
Khalid Belhajjame: what info should we attach to those events? ←
09:17:58 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
09:18:02 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
09:18:45 <Stian> .. and role etc
Stian Soiland-Reyes: .. and role etc ←
09:19:09 <dgarijo> ... when expressing event we attach the info necessary in that event
... when expressing event we attach the info necessary in that event ←
09:19:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:19:25 <dgarijo> ... that would make the model complex
... that would make the model complex ←
09:19:46 <tlebo> I see Khalid's argument for "inconsistent" treatment for the start/end and use/generation...
Timothy Lebo: I see Khalid's argument for "inconsistent" treatment for the start/end and use/generation... ←
09:20:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:20:27 <GK> Good question, Khalid. Don't know.
Graham Klyne: Good question, Khalid. Don't know. ←
09:20:29 <tlebo> wondering if the "upgrade path" duality is going to surface soon.
Timothy Lebo: wondering if the "upgrade path" duality is going to surface soon. ←
09:20:31 <dgarijo> ... is it worth decoupling things or simplifying the concept by attaching optional things to use/generation.
... is it worth decoupling things or simplifying the concept by attaching optional things to use/generation. ←
09:20:33 <khalidbelhajjame> ack kha
Khalid Belhajjame: ack kha ←
09:20:37 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
09:20:52 <dgarijo> pg: nice summary.
Paul Groth: nice summary. ←
09:21:19 <dgarijo> ... events are good to express what we have in the model
... events are good to express what we have in the model ←
09:22:00 <tlebo> activity hadQualifiedStart would parallel event hadQualifiedGeneration
Timothy Lebo: activity hadQualifiedStart would parallel event hadQualifiedGeneration ←
09:22:03 <dgarijo> ... do we need constructs of events to express our provenance?
... do we need constructs of events to express our provenance? ←
09:22:07 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
09:22:08 <Stian> ie. are events in universal discourse or not
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ie. are events in universal discourse or not ←
09:22:35 <tlebo> no construct with is ..... an event ?
Timothy Lebo: no construct with is ..... an event ? ←
09:22:40 <dgarijo> luc: currently there is no construct of an event.
Luc Moreau: currently there is no construct of an event. ←
09:22:53 <GK> q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
Graham Klyne: q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts. ←
09:24:32 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started ←
09:24:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:24:39 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
09:24:44 <Zakim> -??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P0 ←
09:24:45 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended ←
09:24:45 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
09:24:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:24:57 <dgarijo> luc: this issue is stil not finiched
Luc Moreau: this issue is stil not finiched ←
09:24:58 <tlebo> hey!
Timothy Lebo: hey! ←
09:25:07 <Stian> Evil zakim!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Evil zakim! ←
09:25:08 <GK> q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
Graham Klyne: q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts. ←
09:25:24 <Stian> perhaps in that little minute we had our chance to call in to zakim
Stian Soiland-Reyes: perhaps in that little minute we had our chance to call in to zakim ←
09:25:38 <tlebo> startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time) and wasStartedBy(activity, agent)
Timothy Lebo: startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time) and wasStartedBy(activity, agent) ←
09:25:49 <dgarijo> tlebo: higlight the distinction of wasstartedBy (agent), and wasStartedAt(time).
Timothy Lebo: higlight the distinction of wasstartedBy (agent), and wasStartedAt(time). ←
09:26:00 <dgarijo> ... this events are already modeled
... this events are already modeled ←
09:26:11 <jcheney> And we were already considering renaming "QualifiedInvolvement" to "Event"...
James Cheney: And we were already considering renaming "QualifiedInvolvement" to "Event"... ←
09:26:11 <dgarijo> ... through the qualifiedInvolvement.
... through the qualifiedInvolvement. ←
09:26:33 <dgarijo> ... by modeled is in the ontology.
... by modeled is in the ontology. ←
09:26:50 <dgarijo> ... generation and usage are qualifiedInvolvement
... generation and usage are qualifiedInvolvement ←
09:27:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: notion of transforming qualifiedInvolvement to Event
Paul Groth: notion of transforming qualifiedInvolvement to Event ←
09:27:47 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started ←
09:27:48 <dgarijo> smiles: disagreed with tim
Simon Miles: disagreed with tim ←
09:27:53 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
09:28:23 <dgarijo> ... it is just to describe the relationship, not the event.
... it is just to describe the relationship, not the event. ←
09:28:44 <dgarijo> ... proposes to separate wasStartedAt and wasStartedBy
... proposes to separate wasStartedAt and wasStartedBy ←
09:29:03 <dgarijo> khalid: would the agent be optional in wasStartedAt
Khalid Belhajjame: would the agent be optional in wasStartedAt ←
09:29:28 <Stian> so say prov:hadRole on an event is a bit strange.. did the event play a role? I thought the event was what happened when someone assumed the role
Stian Soiland-Reyes: so say prov:hadRole on an event is a bit strange.. did the event play a role? I thought the event was what happened when someone assumed the role ←
09:29:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:29:37 <Stian> I think QualifiedInvolvement could have duration
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think QualifiedInvolvement could have duration ←
09:29:41 <Stian> for instance Usage
Stian Soiland-Reyes: for instance Usage ←
09:29:52 <Stian> I used the encyclopedia entity from 14:45 to 15:15
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I used the encyclopedia entity from 14:45 to 15:15 ←
09:30:02 <Stian> and at 15:00 I generated the report
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and at 15:00 I generated the report ←
09:30:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:30:42 <Stian> 1~but that took me from 14:50 till 15:00
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 1~but that took me from 14:50 till 15:00 ←
09:30:45 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
09:30:45 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts. ←
09:30:55 <tlebo> zakim!
Timothy Lebo: zakim! ←
09:31:08 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
09:31:11 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
09:31:23 <dgarijo> GK: do we need these new constructs? I don't think so
Graham Klyne: do we need these new constructs? I don't think so ←
09:32:02 <dgarijo> we shouldn't change the current model unless we do have a clear use case
we shouldn't change the current model unless we do have a clear use case ←
09:32:18 <dgarijo> luc: but what is it in the dm?
Luc Moreau: but what is it in the dm? ←
09:32:46 <dgarijo> gk: events are not surfaced as part of the dm, just as an explanation
Graham Klyne: events are not surfaced as part of the dm, just as an explanation ←
09:33:12 <Stian> formally the events have partial ordering which is defined in constraints - like usage time of entity >= generation time
Stian Soiland-Reyes: formally the events have partial ordering which is defined in constraints - like usage time of entity >= generation time ←
09:34:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:34:01 <tlebo> over taken by Activities.
Timothy Lebo: over taken by Activities. ←
09:35:06 <dgarijo> paolo: activities begin and end
Paolo Missier: activities begin and end ←
09:35:15 <dgarijo> ... what do you say about entity?
... what do you say about entity? ←
09:36:05 <dgarijo> ... if you ad the generatedBy and generatedAt you restore part of the consistency
... if you ad the generatedBy and generatedAt you restore part of the consistency ←
09:36:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:36:23 <Luc> ack paolo
Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←
09:37:14 <Paolo> hi Jun!
Paolo Missier: hi Jun! ←
09:37:44 <Stian> jun: our zakim bridge has gone bad .. do you want to skype in?
Jun Zhao: our zakim bridge has gone bad .. do you want to skype in? [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
09:37:50 <dgarijo> pgroth: the only issue is that we want some sort simetry/consistency across the model
Paul Groth: the only issue is that we want some sort simetry/consistency across the model ←
09:37:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:38:18 <dgarijo> luc: last part of the issue
Luc Moreau: last part of the issue ←
09:38:24 <pgroth> or jun are you on the bridge?
Paul Groth: or jun are you on the bridge? ←
09:38:37 <Stian> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
09:38:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0 ←
09:38:47 <dgarijo> ... something was started by something which is not clearly an agent
... something was started by something which is not clearly an agent ←
09:39:01 <Zakim> -??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P0 ←
09:39:02 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended ←
09:39:02 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
09:39:02 <smiles> Just to say, I dont think my proposal implies any need for change in the ontology, as long as we dont interpret qualifiedinvolvement as an event
Simon Miles: Just to say, I dont think my proposal implies any need for change in the ontology, as long as we dont interpret qualifiedinvolvement as an event ←
09:39:32 <Stian> Zakim, list conferences
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, list conferences ←
09:39:32 <Zakim> I see no active conferences
Zakim IRC Bot: I see no active conferences ←
09:39:34 <Zakim> scheduled at this time is PROV_f2f()3:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: scheduled at this time is PROV_f2f()3:00AM ←
09:39:40 <Stian> zakim, this is PROV_f2f
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, this is PROV_f2f ←
09:39:40 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f".
Zakim IRC Bot: Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f". ←
09:39:53 <Stian> zakim, this is PROV
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, this is PROV ←
09:39:53 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV".
Zakim IRC Bot: Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV". ←
09:39:54 <tlebo> @smiles, can QualifiedInvolvment be a superclass of event?
Timothy Lebo: @smiles, can QualifiedInvolvment be a superclass of event? ←
09:39:56 <Stian> zakim, this is bob
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, this is bob ←
09:39:56 <Zakim> sorry, Stian, I do not see a conference named 'bob' in progress or scheduled at this time
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Stian, I do not see a conference named 'bob' in progress or scheduled at this time ←
09:40:10 <dgarijo> ... a coment that starts an activity
... a coment that starts an activity ←
09:40:26 <dgarijo> ... the presence of an entity that started the activity
... the presence of an entity that started the activity ←
09:40:37 <dgarijo> ... we can't express that
... we can't express that ←
09:40:44 <dgarijo> ... it is a limitation
... it is a limitation ←
09:41:00 <pgroth> zakim, this with be PROV_f2f()
Paul Groth: zakim, this with be PROV_f2f() ←
09:41:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this with be PROV_f2f()', pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this with be PROV_f2f()', pgroth ←
09:41:17 <tlebo> #zakim #irc #prov #humor from @stian
Timothy Lebo: #zakim #irc #prov #humor from @stian ←
09:41:22 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
09:41:22 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 101 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 101 minutes ago ←
09:41:38 <tlebo> entities cause activities
Timothy Lebo: entities cause activities ←
09:41:55 <tlebo> (luc think people will want to say it)
Timothy Lebo: (luc think people will want to say it) ←
09:42:05 <smiles> @tlebo that doesnt seem intuitive to me. I would think the event is 'in' the relation between qualifiedinvolvement and timestamp, but not an explicit class
Simon Miles: @tlebo that doesnt seem intuitive to me. I would think the event is 'in' the relation between qualifiedinvolvement and timestamp, but not an explicit class ←
09:42:24 <dgarijo> +q
+q ←
09:42:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:42:46 <tlebo> @smiles, the QualifiedInvolvement is the reification (shhh!), so the timestamp on that _is_ in the relation.
Timothy Lebo: @smiles, the QualifiedInvolvement is the reification (shhh!), so the timestamp on that _is_ in the relation. ←
09:42:49 <Luc> ack dg
Luc Moreau: ack dg ←
09:43:05 <Stian> moving many of these shortcuts away from formal model means that their granularity might disappear from the provenance exchange
Stian Soiland-Reyes: moving many of these shortcuts away from formal model means that their granularity might disappear from the provenance exchange ←
09:43:13 <Stian> then something automatically becomes exapnded in DM
Stian Soiland-Reyes: then something automatically becomes exapnded in DM ←
09:43:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
09:43:40 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:44:04 <tlebo> what are we converging to?
Timothy Lebo: what are we converging to? ←
09:44:30 <jcheney> Can we identify some next actions and move on?
James Cheney: Can we identify some next actions and move on? ←
09:44:31 <dgarijo> dgarijo: agents are entities in the end, so we could see that the wasStartedBy allways as startedBy an entity
Daniel Garijo: agents are entities in the end, so we could see that the wasStartedBy allways as startedBy an entity ←
09:44:39 <smiles> @tlebo not sure i quite understand, but i think that matches what i was saying - we are reifying the relationship to say more about it, but the event is only one thing you might say about it...
Simon Miles: @tlebo not sure i quite understand, but i think that matches what i was saying - we are reifying the relationship to say more about it, but the event is only one thing you might say about it... ←
09:45:01 <jcheney> We are arguing with phantoms, need concrete proposals first.
James Cheney: We are arguing with phantoms, need concrete proposals first. ←
09:45:07 <GK> q+ to say this worries me a little because it seems to remove one of the core concepts from OPMV, which AFAICT is a fairly minimal provenance core based in real-world modelling experience
Graham Klyne: q+ to say this worries me a little because it seems to remove one of the core concepts from OPMV, which AFAICT is a fairly minimal provenance core based in real-world modelling experience ←
09:45:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:45:40 <dgarijo> khalid: we are using the same relationship for 2 different things
Khalid Belhajjame: we are using the same relationship for 2 different things ←
09:46:07 <dgarijo> ... control ordering, it is more like triggering the activity
... control ordering, it is more like triggering the activity ←
09:46:16 <GK> Khalid: startedBy vs triggered?
Khalid Belhajjame: startedBy vs triggered? [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
09:46:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:46:42 <Luc> ack kha
Luc Moreau: ack kha ←
09:46:55 <dgarijo> ... it would be less confusing if we had another relationship for this instead of the same
... it would be less confusing if we had another relationship for this instead of the same ←
09:47:18 <tlebo> @smiles, I see what you're saying.
Timothy Lebo: @smiles, I see what you're saying. ←
09:47:53 <tlebo> can anyone summarize what is going on?
Timothy Lebo: can anyone summarize what is going on? ←
09:47:56 <dgarijo> GK: It's a clever trick, but I'm a bit worried about. We might be losing some information.
Graham Klyne: It's a clever trick, but I'm a bit worried about. We might be losing some information. ←
09:48:30 <dgarijo> luc: in OPM you couldn't express the provenance of Agents.
Luc Moreau: in OPM you couldn't express the provenance of Agents. ←
09:48:46 <dgarijo> ... it was a fundamental shortcoming of that model
... it was a fundamental shortcoming of that model ←
09:48:57 <tlebo> luc: important that Agents be Entities so we can describe them.
Luc Moreau: important that Agents be Entities so we can describe them. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
09:49:18 <tlebo> topic - Letting Entities make stuff happen (i.e., be Agents)
Timothy Lebo: topic - Letting Entities make stuff happen (i.e., be Agents) ←
09:49:33 <dgarijo> pgroth: GK wants agents to have responsability
Paul Groth: GK wants agents to have responsability ←
09:49:47 <dgarijo> ... or osmething
... or osmething ←
09:50:13 <tlebo> so we already have Entity wasDerivedFrom Entity. But we're now looking at Activities being caused by Entities?
Timothy Lebo: so we already have Entity wasDerivedFrom Entity. But we're now looking at Activities being caused by Entities? ←
09:50:41 <tlebo> e.g. "The" email that caused the flurry thread of email responses.
Timothy Lebo: e.g. "The" email that caused the flurry thread of email responses. ←
09:51:00 <dgarijo> ... wasStartedBy has a connotation of agency, and if we removed that we still have this connotation
... wasStartedBy has a connotation of agency, and if we removed that we still have this connotation ←
09:51:12 <Stian> wasTriggeredBy or wasStartedBecauseOfThePresenceOf (ugggu) is more the passive started usecase we are talking about
Stian Soiland-Reyes: wasTriggeredBy or wasStartedBecauseOfThePresenceOf (ugggu) is more the passive started usecase we are talking about ←
09:51:32 <tlebo> are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity?
Timothy Lebo: are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity? ←
09:51:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
09:51:40 <tlebo> q+ to ask are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity?
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity? ←
09:51:50 <khalidbelhajjame> How about wasEventuallyStartedBy :-)
Khalid Belhajjame: How about wasEventuallyStartedBy :-) ←
09:51:50 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
09:51:55 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
09:53:22 <Stian> mmm... it's a kind of activity derivation, is it not.. "wasCausedBy"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: mmm... it's a kind of activity derivation, is it not.. "wasCausedBy" ←
09:53:28 <dgarijo> tim: clarification about the topic
Timothy Lebo: clarification about the topic ←
09:53:51 <dgarijo> luc: maybe it is a corner case..
Luc Moreau: maybe it is a corner case.. ←
09:54:29 <dgarijo> tim: you want to associate that entity to some the activities that used it?
Timothy Lebo: you want to associate that entity to some the activities that used it? ←
09:54:37 <pgroth> signature is: wasStartedBy(Agent)
Paul Groth: signature is: wasStartedBy(Agent) ←
09:54:44 <dgarijo> luc: anything that started an activity is an agent
Luc Moreau: anything that started an activity is an agent ←
09:54:46 <Stian> and making an email an agent (and giving it responsibility) does sound quite far out
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and making an email an agent (and giving it responsibility) does sound quite far out ←
09:54:56 <pgroth> thus you infer the email as agent
Paul Groth: thus you infer the email as agent ←
09:55:03 <GK> Or - there exists an activity that used the email and was initiated by some agent
Graham Klyne: Or - there exists an activity that used the email and was initiated by some agent ←
09:55:09 <dgarijo> ... so in this use case we would have the email as an agent
... so in this use case we would have the email as an agent ←
09:55:35 <jcheney> issue-207??
09:56:19 <dgarijo> luc: issue: agent should be asserted and not inferred.
Luc Moreau: issue: agent should be asserted and not inferred. ←
09:56:22 <jcheney> issue-206??
09:56:40 <Stian> yes - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/206 is related
Stian Soiland-Reyes: yes - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/206 is related ←
09:56:50 <GK> Hmmm... can we separate all the inference stuff from the basic data model definition?
Graham Klyne: Hmmm... can we separate all the inference stuff from the basic data model definition? ←
09:57:05 <dgarijo> luc: wrap up: we don't have a proposal on the table right now.
Luc Moreau: wrap up: we don't have a proposal on the table right now. ←
09:57:31 <Stian> if we can't agree - we propose strip/remove. Removing the agent-constraint is a kind of removal.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if we can't agree - we propose strip/remove. Removing the agent-constraint is a kind of removal. ←
09:57:39 <dgarijo> ... wasStartedBy between an activity and an Entity instead of an Agent, but there is not enough consensus.
... wasStartedBy between an activity and an Entity instead of an Agent, but there is not enough consensus. ←
09:57:48 <GK> @stian +1
Graham Klyne: @stian +1 ←
09:58:11 <dgarijo> ... if we do it, it is not a specialization of an association
... if we do it, it is not a specialization of an association ←
09:58:20 <dgarijo> ... it is not clear.
... it is not clear. ←
09:58:26 <Stian> @luc: +1 - wasAssociatedWith to stay as responsibility and agent
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @luc: +1 - wasAssociatedWith to stay as responsibility and agent ←
09:58:33 <GK> @stian I think this leads back to Paul's "trick", but keeping the notion of agency in the model.
Graham Klyne: @stian I think this leads back to Paul's "trick", but keeping the notion of agency in the model. ←
09:58:41 <dgarijo> ... the other proposal is that we don't make any change.
... the other proposal is that we don't make any change. ←
09:59:24 <dgarijo> ... consequence: the email is regarded as an agent in the data model, which is not very "natural".
... consequence: the email is regarded as an agent in the data model, which is not very "natural". ←
10:01:13 <Stian> @GK which 'this'..? :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK which 'this'..? :) ←
10:01:50 <GK> @stian this == "strip/remove" the bits we don't agree about
Graham Klyne: @stian this == "strip/remove" the bits we don't agree about ←
10:02:15 <GK> Why is this linked to startedBy not being a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith?
Graham Klyne: Why is this linked to startedBy not being a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith? ←
10:02:27 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started ←
10:02:34 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended ←
10:02:35 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
10:02:42 <Stian> @GK but is it not confusing if we have a semantic constrain in the DM, but don't reflect that in the PROV-O? Then you can express things n PROV-O that don't map (easily) to PROV-DM.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK but is it not confusing if we have a semantic constrain in the DM, but don't reflect that in the PROV-O? Then you can express things n PROV-O that don't map (easily) to PROV-DM. ←
10:02:45 <Stian> zakim is drunk
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim is drunk ←
10:04:04 <stephenc> (I think that outburst from zakim was caused by me connecting to voip, and being the 1st participant, and hanging up)
Stephen Cresswell: (I think that outburst from zakim was caused by me connecting to voip, and being the 1st participant, and hanging up) ←
10:04:25 <tlebo> how long is this break?
Timothy Lebo: how long is this break? ←
10:04:32 <pgroth> 10 minutes
Paul Groth: 10 minutes ←
10:04:35 <tlebo> thx
Timothy Lebo: thx ←
10:04:39 <pgroth> maybe 15 minutes
Paul Groth: maybe 15 minutes ←
10:05:31 <tlebo> what about causedBy ?
Timothy Lebo: what about causedBy ? ←
10:06:09 <tlebo> Event wasDerivedFrom Event
Timothy Lebo: Entity wasDerivedFrom Entity ←
10:06:14 <tlebo> ack!
Timothy Lebo: ack! ←
10:06:22 <tlebo> s/Event/Entity/
10:06:23 <pgroth> no way
Paul Groth: no way ←
10:06:41 <tlebo> Activity wasCausedBy Email
Timothy Lebo: Activity wasCausedBy Email ←
10:06:54 <tlebo> Activity wasStartedBy EvilDoer
Timothy Lebo: Activity wasStartedBy EvilDoer ←
10:14:48 <tlebo> @sandro hi!
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Timothy Lebo: @sandro hi! ←
10:14:56 <tlebo> i'm no Skype now.
Timothy Lebo: i'm no Skype now. ←
10:15:01 <tlebo> zakim didn't like me this morning.
Timothy Lebo: zakim didn't like me this morning. ←
10:16:24 <tlebo> zakim, why aren't you answering your phone?
Timothy Lebo: zakim, why aren't you answering your phone? ←
10:16:24 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tlebo.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, tlebo. ←
10:20:44 <sandro> Zakim, what is the code?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, what is the code? ←
10:20:44 <Zakim> the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro ←
10:20:50 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started ←
10:20:57 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
10:21:00 <tlebo> @jcheney, I can't open http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:Prov-sem.pdf
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, I can't open http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:Prov-sem.pdf ←
10:21:29 <tlebo> page says application/zip, but .pdf which is it?
Timothy Lebo: page says application/zip, but .pdf which is it? ←
10:23:15 <ivan_> zakim, this is prov
Ivan Herman: zakim, this is prov ←
10:23:15 <Zakim> ivan_, this was already PROV_f2f()3:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan_, this was already PROV_f2f()3:00AM ←
10:23:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan_; that matches PROV_f2f()3:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan_; that matches PROV_f2f()3:00AM ←
10:23:50 <sandro> ivan_, are you folks calling in to Zakim now?
Sandro Hawke: ivan_, are you folks calling in to Zakim now? ←
10:23:51 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
10:23:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
10:24:15 <Zakim> +tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo ←
10:24:26 <jcheney> Oops, uploaded keynote source. Should work now.
James Cheney: Oops, uploaded keynote source. Should work now. ←
10:24:35 <tlebo> Hi, zakim!
Timothy Lebo: Hi, zakim! ←
10:24:45 <tlebo> Zakim, did you miss us?
Timothy Lebo: Zakim, did you miss us? ←
10:24:45 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tlebo.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, tlebo. ←
10:24:48 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +31.20.598.aaaa ←
10:24:56 <pgroth> we have moved to zakim
Paul Groth: we have moved to zakim ←
10:26:21 <Paolo> Jun are you on Zakim?
Paolo Missier: Jun are you on Zakim? ←
10:26:31 <Stian> zakim, who is on the phone?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
10:26:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa ←
10:26:35 <Paolo> zakim, who is on the phone?
Paolo Missier: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
10:26:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa ←
10:26:51 <jcheney> slides at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:Prov-sem.pdf
James Cheney: slides at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:Prov-sem.pdf ←
10:27:26 <khalidbelhajjame> Topic: prov-sem
Summary: James presented a strawman proposal for a formal semantics of provenance. The group positively recieved the proposal and agreed to make it a deliverable of the project. The prov-sem was seen a mechanism to to encode proper provenance. Additionally, he presented the ProvRDF mappings page that provides a systematic means to map prov-dm to prov-o.
<pgroth> Summary: James presented a strawman proposal for a formal semantics of provenance. The group positively recieved the proposal and agreed to make it a deliverable of the project. The prov-sem was seen a mechanism to to encode proper provenance. Additionally, he presented the ProvRDF mappings page that provides a systematic means to map prov-dm to prov-o.
10:27:33 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
10:27:33 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
10:27:36 <pgroth> slide 2
Paul Groth: slide 2 ←
10:27:59 <tlebo> (btw, can't open the slides. Press on)
Timothy Lebo: (btw, can't open the slides. Press on) ←
10:28:25 <Stian> works in chrome
Stian Soiland-Reyes: works in chrome ←
10:29:01 <pgroth> slide 3
Paul Groth: slide 3 ←
10:29:03 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we need to be careful about the features that we include
James Cheney: we need to be careful about the features that we include [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:29:19 <tlebo> thx, have it in chrome
Timothy Lebo: thx, have it in chrome ←
10:29:40 <pgroth> slide 4
Paul Groth: slide 4 ←
10:30:02 <Stian> sandro: ;')
Sandro Hawke: ;') [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
10:30:39 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we have high level contructs, that can be used by people, vs. complex (and risk) approach
James Cheney: we have high level contructs, that can be used by people, vs. complex (and risk) approach [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:30:48 <Stian> I like this comparison.. PROV-DM ~= CISC - PROV-O ~= RISC
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I like this comparison.. PROV-DM ~= CISC - PROV-O ~= RISC ←
10:31:08 <GK> I'm not sure the scruffy/proper axis is quite like CISC/RISC axis
Graham Klyne: I'm not sure the scruffy/proper axis is quite like CISC/RISC axis ←
10:31:22 <pgroth> slide 5
Paul Groth: slide 5 ←
10:31:31 <tlebo> I would reverse the RISC analogy
Timothy Lebo: I would reverse the RISC analogy ←
10:32:27 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: approach: formally specifying the meaning of prov-dm, which can then facilitate the maping from prov-dm to prov-o
James Cheney: approach: formally specifying the meaning of prov-dm, which can then facilitate the maping from prov-dm to prov-o [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:32:34 <Stian> @tlebo, elaborate (briefly!)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo, elaborate (briefly!) ←
10:33:30 <tlebo> scruffies want fewer constructs for the common cases - RISC
Timothy Lebo: scruffies want fewer constructs for the common cases - RISC ←
10:33:37 <Stian> we've got many 'instructions' in DM, O has fewer instructions that can be used/combined to do (most of) what you do in DM
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we've got many 'instructions' in DM, O has fewer instructions that can be used/combined to do (most of) what you do in DM ←
10:33:41 <Stian> I agree
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I agree ←
10:33:46 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the benefit is that we can systematically map prov-dm to prov-o
James Cheney: the benefit is that we can systematically map prov-dm to prov-o [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:33:50 <GK> I see RDF vs PROV-DM like RISC vs CISC. Either can be scruffy or proper. IMHO
Graham Klyne: I see RDF vs PROV-DM like RISC vs CISC. Either can be scruffy or proper. IMHO ←
10:34:01 <pgroth> slide 6
Paul Groth: slide 6 ←
10:34:24 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: what is the goal of the formal semantics?
James Cheney: what is the goal of the formal semantics? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:34:39 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: What are the metrics?
James Cheney: What are the metrics? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:34:45 <tlebo> test cases!
Timothy Lebo: test cases! ←
10:34:51 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: what process can be used for reconciling mismatches
James Cheney: what process can be used for reconciling mismatches [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:35:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
10:35:54 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman ←
10:36:16 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: there has been some changes
James Cheney: there has been some changes [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:36:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: prov-dm assertions are seen as formula
James Cheney: prov-dm assertions are seen as formula [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:37:04 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: prov-dm instance is seen as conjunction of formula
James Cheney: prov-dm instance is seen as conjunction of formula [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:38:00 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: terminology-wise, I use world as opposed to model to avoid confusion
James Cheney: terminology-wise, I use world as opposed to model to avoid confusion [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:38:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I speak about identifiers as variables in a logical formula
James Cheney: I speak about identifiers as variables in a logical formula [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:39:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I assume that there is a set of time instances that can be partially or totally ordered
James Cheney: I assume that there is a set of time instances that can be partially or totally ordered [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:39:11 <GK> @jcheyney re identifiers. Suggest s/(or blank nodes in RDF)/(or nodes in RDF)/
Graham Klyne: @jcheyney re identifiers. Suggest s/(or blank nodes in RDF)/(or nodes in RDF)/ ←
10:39:33 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am also using intervals of time
James Cheney: I am also using intervals of time [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:40:14 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am agnostic about what values are and what attributes are
James Cheney: I am agnostic about what values are and what attributes are [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:40:42 <pgroth> in section formulas
Paul Groth: in section formulas ←
10:40:57 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: A subset of records in prov-dm are represented as formulas
James Cheney: A subset of records in prov-dm are represented as formulas [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:41:19 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Formulas
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Formulas ←
10:41:30 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: there are two kinds of formulas: element_ and relation_formula
James Cheney: there are two kinds of formulas: element_ and relation_formula [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:41:48 <pgroth> section worlds
Paul Groth: section worlds ←
10:44:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: There are three layers: Things, Objects, Syntax
James Cheney: There are three layers: Things, Objects, Syntax [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:44:59 <pgroth> no khalidbelhajjame
Paul Groth: no khalidbelhajjame ←
10:45:07 <pgroth> Things, Social, Syntax
Paul Groth: Things, Social, Syntax ←
10:46:01 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Things
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Things ←
10:46:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Things have a life time and attributes that can change over time
James Cheney: Things have a life time and attributes that can change over time [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:46:52 <Stian> (jcheney just updated formula of #things to talk about Things rather than Objects)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (jcheney just updated formula of #things to talk about Things rather than Objects) ←
10:47:50 <tlebo> ^^ rdf:type prov:Account .
Timothy Lebo: ^^ rdf:type prov:Account . ←
10:48:07 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: example: thing can change color over tme, e.g., from blue to red
James Cheney: example: thing can change color over tme, e.g., from blue to red [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:48:48 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: It is possible to have two things that have the same attributes and attribute values
James Cheney: It is possible to have two things that have the same attributes and attribute values [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:49:03 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: and have the same lifetime
James Cheney: and have the same lifetime [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:49:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian: are you distinguishing between known and unkniown attributes
Stian Soiland-Reyes: are you distinguishing between known and unkniown attributes [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:50:04 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am not saying anything about that
James Cheney: I am not saying anything about that [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:50:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
10:51:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Things may not be distinguishable by anything other than their identity
James Cheney: Things may not be distinguishable by anything other than their identity [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:51:45 <Stian> @jcheney: This is good stuff
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @jcheney: This is good stuff ←
10:51:46 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Entities, Activities and Agenets are seen as Objects
James Cheney: Entities, Activities and Agenets are seen as Objects [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:52:12 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entities ?
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entities ? ←
10:52:22 <pgroth> Objects
Paul Groth: Objects ←
10:52:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: An entity is a representation of a thing during an interval
James Cheney: An entity is a representation of a thing during an interval [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:53:05 <Stian> (jcheney removed "of things" in "a set Objects of things" under #Objects)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (jcheney removed "of things" in "a set Objects of things" under #Objects) ←
10:53:41 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: The difference between things and entities is the time dependency
James Cheney: The difference between things and entities is the time dependency [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:53:56 <pgroth> highlighting entities
Paul Groth: highlighting entities ←
10:54:21 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: what's the reason between the distinction between entities and objects?
Ivan Herman: what's the reason between the distinction between entities and objects? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:54:34 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: That's what the DM says
James Cheney: That's what the DM says [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:54:41 <Stian> YESSSS
Stian Soiland-Reyes: YESSSS ←
10:55:29 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: activities and entities are disjoint
Luc Moreau: activities and entities are disjoint [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:55:53 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the difference between the thing and object is there because it is in the DM
James Cheney: the difference between the thing and object is there because it is in the DM [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:56:01 <GK> For the purpose of formalizing prov-dm (as is), is it important to have "lifetime : Things -> Intervals" ?
Graham Klyne: For the purpose of formalizing prov-dm (as is), is it important to have "lifetime : Things -> Intervals" ? ←
10:56:12 <Stian> the difference between *entity* and *object*
Stian Soiland-Reyes: the difference between *entity* and *object* ←
10:56:20 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the grouping of entities, activities and agent under object is there for typing purposes
James Cheney: the grouping of entities, activities and agent under object is there for typing purposes [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:57:17 <pgroth> in section Activities
Paul Groth: in section Activities ←
10:58:16 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: a given object does not necessarily have values for all attributes
Luc Moreau: a given object does not necessarily have values for all attributes [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:58:26 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: some values stand for missing
James Cheney: some values stand for missing [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
10:58:45 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I d rather go through the basics rather than trying to discuss everything
James Cheney: I d rather go through the basics rather than trying to discuss everything [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:00:25 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: because we separate things that varies from entities that are (fixed), we have a function that map the two
James Cheney: because we separate things that varies from entities that are (fixed), we have a function that map the two [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:01:07 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: examples: three entities can describe the same entity with possibly overlapping intervals
James Cheney: examples: three entities can describe the same entity with possibly overlapping intervals [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:01:15 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: events
James Cheney: events [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:01:39 <Stian> Activity disjoint from Entity prevents an Activity using/generating/etc another Activity, etc (so you can't say :discussing a prov:Activity . :scribing a prov:Activity, prov:used :discussing ) - you will need to make the entity :discussion (which is... generated by :discussing?)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Activity disjoint from Entity prevents an Activity using/generating/etc another Activity, etc (so you can't say :discussing a prov:Activity . :scribing a prov:Activity, prov:used :discussing ) - you will need to make the entity :discussion (which is... generated by :discussing?) ←
11:01:51 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity is an object that comrises a set of events
James Cheney: an activity is an object that comrises a set of events [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:02:29 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity is related to a collection of events
James Cheney: an activity is related to a collection of events [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:02:52 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Events is a subset of Objects
James Cheney: Events is a subset of Objects [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:03:16 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an event relates an activity to an entity
James Cheney: an event relates an activity to an entity [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:03:29 <dgarijo> @Stian: the phantom entity!
@Stian: the phantom entity! ←
11:03:33 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an event is associated with a time
James Cheney: an event is associated with a time [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:04:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: events can be ordered based on the times associated with them
James Cheney: events can be ordered based on the times associated with them [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:04:14 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Events ?
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Events ? ←
11:04:23 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: start and end of activities are events
James Cheney: start and end of activities are events [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:04:24 <GK> This makes me realize my earlier focus of (some) discussion on "domain of discourse" wasn't quite right...
Graham Klyne: This makes me realize my earlier focus of (some) discussion on "domain of discourse" wasn't quite right... ←
11:05:09 <GK> @tlebo yes, I think so
Graham Klyne: @tlebo yes, I think so ←
11:05:18 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Used relates an event to an entity
James Cheney: Used relates an event to an entity [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:06:00 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: to keep track of the different uses, we are associating the entity with the event
James Cheney: to keep track of the different uses, we are associating the entity with the event [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:06:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the "use" event
James Cheney: the "use" event [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:13:14 <Stian> @Paolo +1 (and that's why perhaps 'destruction' is wrong term)
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Paolo +1 (and that's why perhaps 'destruction' is wrong term) ←
11:13:15 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: the disctuction of an entity does not means the disctuction of the tghing, but possibly thhe modification of the value of one of its attributes
Paolo Missier: the disctuction of an entity does not means the disctuction of the tghing, but possibly thhe modification of the value of one of its attributes [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:13:16 <pgroth> Section Semantics
Paul Groth: Section Semantics ←
11:13:28 <Stian> it's more 'end of characterisation' - which in some cases could be end of the thing
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it's more 'end of characterisation' - which in some cases could be end of the thing ←
11:13:44 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the identifiers are interpreted as objects not as things
James Cheney: the identifiers are interpreted as objects not as things [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:14:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: multiple identifiers may refer to the same object
James Cheney: multiple identifiers may refer to the same object [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:14:16 <Stian> so the identifier is an activity, entity, event or perhaps something else
Stian Soiland-Reyes: so the identifier is an activity, entity, event or perhaps something else ←
11:14:48 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the identifiers are identifiers of descriptions as opposed to identifiers of things?
Luc Moreau: the identifiers are identifiers of descriptions as opposed to identifiers of things? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:14:58 <Stian> it's more like the identifier of objects in the universe of discourse
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it's more like the identifier of objects in the universe of discourse ←
11:15:34 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: yes, but I am not super-comfortable with it !
James Cheney: yes, but I am not super-comfortable with it ! [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:16:09 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: would use of perspective instead of description
Paul Groth: would use of perspective instead of description [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:17:46 <pgroth> in section satisfaction
Paul Groth: in section satisfaction ←
11:17:50 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: for each formula, we define relationships that says that a given formula is satisfied in a given world, given an interpretation
James Cheney: for each formula, we define relationships that says that a given formula is satisfied in a given world, given an interpretation [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:18:01 <GK> Interesting... I always read |= as "entails" (as opposed to "models")
Graham Klyne: Interesting... I always read |= as "entails" (as opposed to "models") ←
11:18:16 <Stian> did Objects require there to be at least 1 attribute - or just that the function gives those attributes which "Don't change?". I think the second - then easily all things can be objects
Stian Soiland-Reyes: did Objects require there to be at least 1 attribute - or just that the function gives those attributes which "Don't change?". I think the second - then easily all things can be objects ←
11:18:29 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: a conjuctions of formulas holds if the constituent formulas holds individually
James Cheney: a conjuctions of formulas holds if the constituent formulas holds individually [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:19:43 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entity_Records
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entity_Records ←
11:19:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Entity Records section
Khalid Belhajjame: Entity Records section ←
11:20:55 <Stian> @GK - well our world here is within the view of one particular account
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK - well our world here is within the view of one particular account ←
11:22:04 <Stian> and this means that entity records with the same ID (but different attribs) are mapped in the same space (which I think is intention of DM)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and this means that entity records with the same ID (but different attribs) are mapped in the same space (which I think is intention of DM) ←
11:22:13 <tlebo> the scruffies tend to name (and reference) Things, not Entities.
Timothy Lebo: the scruffies tend to name (and reference) Things, not Entities. ←
11:22:33 <khalidbelhajjame> Activity Records section
Khalid Belhajjame: Activity Records section ←
11:23:28 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity has a plan, and has a start and end times, which are literals
James Cheney: an activity has a plan, and has a start and end times, which are literals [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:23:34 <tlebo> (or, the broadest Entity that mirrors the Thing to the largest interval....)
Timothy Lebo: (or, the broadest Entity that mirrors the Thing to the largest interval....) ←
11:23:51 <GK> @stian ... er, yes, but I'm not sure of the motivation for this observation. I was just trying to point out that this semantics was enforcing a certain level of invariance.
Graham Klyne: @stian ... er, yes, but I'm not sure of the motivation for this observation. I was just trying to point out that this semantics was enforcing a certain level of invariance. ←
11:24:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Generation section
Khalid Belhajjame: Generation section ←
11:25:01 <Stian> sorry - what is the obj here?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry - what is the obj here? ←
11:25:38 <Stian> ah -it should be in Entities - right
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ah -it should be in Entities - right ←
11:27:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Spezialization section
Khalid Belhajjame: Spezialization section ←
11:28:20 <tlebo> please don't collapse to owl:sameAs.
Timothy Lebo: please don't collapse to owl:sameAs. ←
11:28:31 <Stian> @GK that's what our model says - if someone abuses the model then they can't expect the formal semantics to still work - in fact that they don't work should be a good hint to them that they've done something too scruffy
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK that's what our model says - if someone abuses the model then they can't expect the formal semantics to still work - in fact that they don't work should be a good hint to them that they've done something too scruffy ←
11:29:06 <GK> @stian indeed...
Graham Klyne: @stian indeed... ←
11:30:39 <stephenc> Is specializationOf reflexive? I think it needs to be stated whether or not (here and in prov-dm).
Stephen Cresswell: Is specializationOf reflexive? I think it needs to be stated whether or not (here and in prov-dm). ←
11:31:56 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
11:32:00 <GK> IMO, this definition of specialization actually allows us to let the DM define a "scruffy" usage, and then sets out the conditions under which the provenance can be combined in ways that we might want/expect to do....
Graham Klyne: IMO, this definition of specialization actually allows us to let the DM define a "scruffy" usage, and then sets out the conditions under which the provenance can be combined in ways that we might want/expect to do.... ←
11:32:26 <GK> ... i.e. we can eliminate the thing/entity distinction in DM, but still keep this semantic model.
Graham Klyne: ... i.e. we can eliminate the thing/entity distinction in DM, but still keep this semantic model. ←
11:33:17 <Stian> .... and in some cases the two physical things could be the same entity? ("The north-facing traffic light in StreetA crossing StreetB is red")
Stian Soiland-Reyes: .... and in some cases the two physical things could be the same entity? ("The north-facing traffic light in StreetA crossing StreetB is red") ←
11:34:03 <Paolo> @ stephenc: I think it should be stated it is reflexive
Paolo Missier: @ stephenc: I think it should be stated it is reflexive ←
11:35:50 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
11:35:57 <Stian> @stephenc reflexive is allowed here and implied because if 'if and only if'.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @stephenc reflexive is allowed here and implied because of 'of and only of'. ←
11:36:04 <Stian> s/if/of/
11:36:19 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: we could made the chances to collapse the distinction between things and entities, we map the entities to the semantics. This may give us the (formal) behaviour taht we want
Graham Klyne: we could made the chances to collapse the distinction between things and entities, we map the entities to the semantics. This may give us the (formal) behaviour taht we want [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:37:05 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the objective is to see if prov-sem is a good, and to specify the kinds of interactions that prov-sem can have with other documents
James Cheney: the objective is to see if prov-sem is a good, and to specify the kinds of interactions that prov-sem can have with other documents [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:37:10 <pgroth> last slide
Paul Groth: last slide ←
11:37:11 <GK> I think DM can describe both PropP and ScrufP (proper and scruffy provenance), and the semantics then tells us when the expressions can be treated formally as PropP.
Graham Klyne: I think DM can describe both PropP and ScrufP (proper and scruffy provenance), and the semantics then tells us when the expressions can be treated formally as PropP. ←
11:37:12 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: last slide
James Cheney: last slide [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:37:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: plan for next weeks, have something that we can show to other people, e.G., in Dagsthul
James Cheney: plan for next weeks, have something that we can show to other people, e.G., in Dagsthul [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:38:04 <GK> The upside for us... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
Graham Klyne: The upside for us... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content. ←
11:38:18 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
11:38:28 <Stian> @GK +10
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK +10 ←
11:38:45 <pgroth> ack gk
Paul Groth: ack gk ←
11:38:49 <pgroth> ack ivan
Paul Groth: ack ivan ←
11:40:05 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan:the formal sem can be used to check if what is described (makes sense?)
Ivan Herman: the formal sem can be used to check if what is described (makes sense?) [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:40:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: OWL can be used to infer things (facts)
Ivan Herman: OWL can be used to infer things (facts) [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:40:50 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
11:40:52 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
11:41:10 <kai> q+
Kai Eckert: q+ ←
11:41:12 <stephenc> @Stian, @Paolo It seems to depend on reflexivity of "contained in" in condition (3). In prov-dm, I think it is still ambiguous, although I think Paolo and GK discussed it on mailing list and agreed.
Stephen Cresswell: @Stian, @Paolo It seems to depend on reflexivity of "contained in" in condition (3). In prov-dm, I think it is still ambiguous, although I think Paolo and GK discussed it on mailing list and agreed. ←
11:41:54 <GK> q+ to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
Graham Klyne: q+ to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content. ←
11:42:08 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we may want to think about if prov-sem can hep in identifying inference rules in prov-dm or prov-o
James Cheney: we may want to think about if prov-sem can hep in identifying inference rules in prov-dm or prov-o [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:42:20 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I have not written that yet
James Cheney: I have not written that yet [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:42:50 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
11:42:53 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: to the outside world we need to clarify that, and we need to use a different world than semantics
Ivan Herman: to the outside world we need to clarify that, or we need to use a different world than semantics [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:42:56 <pgroth> ace paolo
Paul Groth: ace paolo ←
11:42:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
11:43:08 <ivan> s/, and/, or/
11:43:16 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: there are constraints in DM that can be used to generate new assertions
Paolo Missier: there are constraints in DM that can be used to generate new assertions [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:43:24 <pgroth> ack kai
Paul Groth: ack kai ←
11:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame> Kai: in the dublin work, we have a work on use of OWL to check
Kai Eckert: in the dublin work, we have a work on use of OWL to check [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:45:27 <pgroth> ack gk
Paul Groth: ack gk ←
11:45:27 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content. ←
11:45:48 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: prov-sem can help us in simplifying the model
Graham Klyne: prov-sem can help us in simplifying the model [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:46:15 <Stian> ... but then we need to make it a REQ, right?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ... but then we need to make it a REQ, right? ←
11:46:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: and by having prov-sem, we can tell to people this is what it actuall means. In other words, use prov-dm as a tool
Graham Klyne: and by having prov-sem, we can tell to people this is what it actuall means. In other words, use prov-dm as a tool [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:47:00 <pgroth> q+ guus
Paul Groth: q+ guus ←
11:47:04 <tlebo> are we going to discuss http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF ?
Timothy Lebo: are we going to discuss http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF ? ←
11:47:07 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: prov-sem is a tool that allow us to explore the possibilities
Luc Moreau: prov-sem is a tool that allow us to explore the possibilities [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:47:25 <Stian> (PROV-SM could be made into an appendix to PROV-DM)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (PROV-SM could be made into an appendix to PROV-DM) ←
11:47:36 <tlebo> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
11:47:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: it can also be used to avoid having things in prov-dm that can be clearly defined using prov-sem
Graham Klyne: it can also be used to avoid having things in prov-dm that can be clearly defined using prov-sem [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:47:59 <jcheney> @tlebo: I think we will look at ProvRDF after lunch, sorry
James Cheney: @tlebo: I think we will look at ProvRDF after lunch, sorry ←
11:48:20 <dgarijo> grama?
grama? ←
11:48:25 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: introduces guus, the chair of RDF working group
Paul Groth: introduces guus, the chair of RDF working group [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:48:28 <tlebo> @jcheney, after lunch is fine. I just wanted to know if it was on the agenda.
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, after lunch is fine. I just wanted to know if it was on the agenda. ←
11:49:01 <khalidbelhajjame> Guus: for the semantics, we only went for things that we actually are sure are used, and tried to keep is simple
Guus Schreiber: for the semantics, we only went for things that we actually are sure are used, and tried to keep is simple [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:49:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Guus: maybe you can take a look when at how we specified SKOS semantics, that can be helpful
Guus Schreiber: maybe you can take a look when at how we specified SKOS semantics, that can be helpful [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:50:20 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F2Timetable
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F2Timetable ←
11:50:21 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: there are some issues that we are in prov wg are interested in having feedback from the rdf working group
Ivan Herman: there are some issues that we are in prov wg are interested in having feedback from the rdf working group [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
11:50:28 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F2Timetable
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F2Timetable ←
11:50:50 <tlebo> 40 minute break?
Timothy Lebo: 40 minute break? ←
11:52:02 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
11:52:10 <pgroth> breaking until 1:30 our time
Paul Groth: breaking until 1:30 our time ←
11:53:01 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
12:31:59 <sandro> it's time, yes?
(No events recorded for 38 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: it's time, yes? ←
12:32:31 <tlebo> I think so
Timothy Lebo: I think so ←
12:33:24 <sandro> zakim, what is the code?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, what is the code? ←
12:33:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro ←
12:33:33 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
12:36:03 <khalidbelhajjame> Topic: Interoperability
Summary: The discussion focused on interoprability of implementations and how the group would demonstrate interoprability. Guus suggested we look at the skos approach to demonstrating interoprability. A survey was taken of the group about who was planning on implementing the spec. 8 people said they had plans or were already under way. It was agreed that we would take a dual approach to demonstrating interoprability. One would be a survey of implementations that shows that every concept is used in at least two different implementations (like skos). The second would be to identify pairs of implementations that can excahnge provenance. The implementation task force would be activated to begin building test harnesses based on the examples cataloged by Tim.
<pgroth> Summary: The discussion focused on interoprability of implementations and how the group would demonstrate interoprability. Guus suggested we look at the skos approach to demonstrating interoprability. A survey was taken of the group about who was planning on implementing the spec. 8 people said they had plans or were already under way. It was agreed that we would take a dual approach to demonstrating interoprability. One would be a survey of implementations that shows that every concept is used in at least two different implementations (like skos). The second would be to identify pairs of implementations that can excahnge provenance. The implementation task force would be activated to begin building test harnesses based on the examples cataloged by Tim.
12:36:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
12:36:18 <Luc> ack guus
Luc Moreau: ack guus ←
12:36:39 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: who is implementing the specs?
Luc Moreau: who is implementing the specs? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:36:57 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian, smiles:, Paul, Luc
Khalid Belhajjame: Stian, smiles:, Paul, Luc ←
12:37:02 <jcheney> +0.5
James Cheney: +0.5 ←
12:37:08 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham also
Khalid Belhajjame: Graham also ←
12:37:52 <pgroth> export functionality from workflow systems
Paul Groth: export functionality from workflow systems ←
12:37:57 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian: workflow provenance export from Taverna
Stian Soiland-Reyes: workflow provenance export from Taverna [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:37:57 <pgroth> (wings, taverna)
Paul Groth: (wings, taverna) ←
12:38:06 <GK> (I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics.)
Graham Klyne: (I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics.) ←
12:38:07 <khalidbelhajjame> kai: Dublin
Kai Eckert: Dublin [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:38:08 <khalidbelhajjame> core
Khalid Belhajjame: core ←
12:38:28 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: standalone library
Simon Miles: standalone library [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:38:53 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: implementing history of changes in wiki
James Cheney: implementing history of changes in wiki [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:39:21 <stephenc> We plan to use on open data projects - but initially at least it will be mapping from OPMV
Stephen Cresswell: We plan to use on open data projects - but initially at least it will be mapping from OPMV ←
12:39:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: datalog interpretation of prov-dm
Paolo Missier: datalog interpretation of prov-dm [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:40:17 <tlebo> My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs.
Timothy Lebo: My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs. ←
12:40:18 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics in the context of workflows and data quality
Graham Klyne: I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics in the context of workflows and data quality [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:40:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the use of prov in the context of smart energy management systems
Luc Moreau: the use of prov in the context of smart energy management systems [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:41:21 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: and scientific environment for editorial activities
Luc Moreau: and scientific environment for editorial activities [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:41:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
12:42:15 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: tracking data preparation procedures that are done on teh command line
Paul Groth: tracking data preparation procedures that are done on teh command line [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:43:34 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: two independent impelmentations that interoperatte?
Luc Moreau: two independent impelmentations that interoperatte? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:43:40 <GK> Interop - one implementation generates/writes, another reads/uses
Graham Klyne: Interop - one implementation generates/writes, another reads/uses ←
12:43:47 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: we need to talk about skos
Luc Moreau: we need to talk about skos [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:44:40 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: after recommendation, the next thing is to who that the 'thing' is implementable
Ivan Herman: after recommendation, the next thing is to who that the 'thing' is implementable [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:44:58 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: you have an API for javascript, and hope there are 2 or more implementations
Ivan Herman: you have an API for javascript, and hope there are 2 or more implementations [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:45:24 <Stian> perhaps what we are weak on is *consuming* provenance
Stian Soiland-Reyes: perhaps what we are weak on is *consuming* provenance ←
12:45:49 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: for thinsg like provenance, it is not clear, and it is up to the group to decide what it means to have interoperable implementations
Ivan Herman: for thinsg like provenance, it is not clear, and it is up to the group to decide what it means to have interoperable implementations [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:45:55 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html SKOS implementation report
Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html SKOS implementation report ←
12:46:00 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: in the case for skos for examples:
Ivan Herman: in the case for skos for examples: [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:47:34 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: the criteria themeselves are not subject to public review
Ivan Herman: the criteria themeselves are not subject to public review [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:48:52 <Stian> several terms here are not used by anything, collection, mappingRelation, member, memberList, xl:label, ..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: several terms here are not used by anything, collection, mappingRelation, member, memberList, xl:label, .. ←
12:49:32 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: for every contruct in the vocabulary, they showed in skos, the implementations that made use of that construct
Paul Groth: for every contruct in the vocabulary, they showed in skos, the implementations that made use of that construct [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:49:41 <sandro> q+ to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented ←
12:50:49 <tlebo> My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs.
Timothy Lebo: My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs. ←
12:51:06 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
12:51:18 <Stian> Taverna-PROV-O is using it as RDF/XML, but not really linked data as it generates new (non-dereferencable) URIs for pretty much everything (more like a file format)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Taverna-PROV-O is using it as RDF/XML, but not really linked data as it generates new (non-dereferencable) URIs for pretty much everything (more like a file format) ←
12:51:40 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
12:52:06 <tlebo> dereferencing all over my stuff :-)
Timothy Lebo: dereferencing all over my stuff :-) ←
12:52:39 <pgroth> ack sandro
Paul Groth: ack sandro ←
12:52:39 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented ←
12:52:40 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: it is preferable to have people who are not part of the wg, who implemented the model
Ivan Herman: it is preferable to have people who are not part of the wg, who implemented the model [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:52:57 <Stian> no - the SKOS issues there are used to track what was posted about the implementations
Stian Soiland-Reyes: no - the SKOS issues there are used to track what was posted about the implementations ←
12:53:22 <khalidbelhajjame> sandro: there are some contructs in skos that were not implenented by anybody, or very few
Sandro Hawke: there are some contructs in skos that were not implenented by anybody, or very few [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:54:12 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: vocabularies?
James Cheney: vocabularies? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:54:16 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
12:54:33 <tlebo> so, a "data application"
Timothy Lebo: so, a "data application" ←
12:54:38 <Stian> Remember SKOS is meant to be used by/for vocabularies
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Remember SKOS is meant to be used by/for vocabularies ←
12:54:45 <Stian> PROV is not
Stian Soiland-Reyes: PROV is not ←
12:54:55 <tlebo> "Vocabulary": instance data using the skos vocab.
Timothy Lebo: "Vocabulary": instance data using the skos vocab. ←
12:54:56 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: vocabularies: a pile of vocabulary somewhere, services ?
James Cheney: vocabularies: a pile of vocabulary somewhere, services ? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:55:09 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: for example, a service that check the quality
Ivan Herman: for example, a service that check the quality [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:55:26 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: application is something used by people
James Cheney: application is something used by people [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:56:37 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what it mean to have interoperability? I can take prov xml and output prov rdf?
Paul Groth: what it mean to have interoperability? I can take prov xml and output prov rdf? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:56:54 <sandro> producers and consumers, yes.
Sandro Hawke: producers and consumers, yes. ←
12:57:19 <khalidbelhajjame> graham: one impl generates statments, and another implementation that use and make sense of the thing output by the first impl
Graham Klyne: one impl generates statments, and another implementation that use and make sense of the thing output by the first impl [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:57:27 <tlebo> X out of Y functions that Tool T can do IS DONE based on the provenance provided by Tool S
Timothy Lebo: X out of Y functions that Tool T can do IS DONE based on the provenance provided by Tool S ←
12:57:55 <khalidbelhajjame> graham: not necessarily two impl from the same domain
Graham Klyne: not necessarily two impl from the same domain [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:58:03 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
12:58:07 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
12:58:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
12:58:23 <khalidbelhajjame> paolo: how do you ensure that the interpretation is doen correctly?
Paolo Missier: how do you ensure that the interpretation is doen correctly? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:58:24 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
12:59:22 <khalidbelhajjame> sandro: you can have test suite that is used seperatly with the consumer and producer for propvenance, you don't have to have direct interoperability between two implementations
Sandro Hawke: you can have test suite that is used seperatly with the consumer and producer for propvenance, you don't have to have direct interoperability between two implementations [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
12:59:48 <sandro> too quiet
Sandro Hawke: too quiet ←
13:00:00 <tlebo> khalid: ??
Khalid Belhajjame: ?? [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
13:00:06 <Stian> for instance - a REST service in Taverna could use PAQ to also ask for the provenance of the retrieved resource (which would need to come from a second implementation), and link retrieved entities to the workflow entities in its exported provenance. But how would that be measured?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: for instance - a REST service in Taverna could use PAQ to also ask for the provenance of the retrieved resource (which would need to come from a second implementation), and link retrieved entities to the workflow entities in its exported provenance. But how would that be measured? ←
13:00:42 <GK> I think the test suite approach works for features like inferences in consumers, but I'm not sure it applies to basic exchange.
Graham Klyne: I think the test suite approach works for features like inferences in consumers, but I'm not sure it applies to basic exchange. ←
13:01:02 <Stian> In Provenance Challenge there was a set of queries you should be able to answer
Stian Soiland-Reyes: In Provenance Challenge there was a set of queries you should be able to answer ←
13:01:03 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: I don't understand how test suite can help in our case
Paul Groth: I don't understand how test suite can help in our case [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:01:22 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
13:01:53 <Stian> say an implementation only exports wasDerivedFrom() records - then we need a derivation-query
Stian Soiland-Reyes: say an implementation only exports wasDerivedFrom() records - then we need a derivation-query ←
13:02:28 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
13:02:43 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
13:02:46 <GK> Sandro's test case matches my consumer case (above), but doesn't test the producer.
Graham Klyne: Sandro's test case matches my consumer case (above), but doesn't test the producer. ←
13:04:11 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: all they did in skos it show that the vocabulary is used and the applications that make use of it
Paul Groth: all they did in skos it show that the vocabulary is used and the applications that make use of it [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:04:20 <Stian> but how do you know the different implementations actually interpreted the standard in an interoperable way?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but how do you know the different implementations actually interpreted the standard in an interoperable way? ←
13:04:48 <Stian> +1 sandro
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 sandro ←
13:05:15 <GK> Trouble is, SKOS have a very weak notion of correctness.
Graham Klyne: Trouble is, SKOS have a very weak notion of correctness. ←
13:05:17 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what is the test suite for vocabulary
Paul Groth: what is the test suite for vocabulary [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:05:27 <tlebo> We could start with examples that cover the constructs....
Timothy Lebo: We could start with examples that cover the constructs.... ←
13:05:50 <GK> @Paul +1
Graham Klyne: @Paul +1 ←
13:05:52 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: if we have inferences, then it make sense to have test suite
Paul Groth: if we have inferences, then it make sense to have test suite [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:06:11 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
13:06:15 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
13:06:17 <sandro> sandro: you probably cant test a vocab, so maybe build some scaffolding for each use case to test implementation of those use cases
Sandro Hawke: you probably cant test a vocab, so maybe build some scaffolding for each use case to test implementation of those use cases [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:06:26 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:06:28 <tlebo> pointers to real-world instance data and services?
Timothy Lebo: pointers to real-world instance data and services? ←
13:06:30 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
13:07:04 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR ←
13:07:06 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←
13:07:13 <tlebo> interoperability - the minimal amount that you need to agree upon so that you don't need to agree to anything more.
Timothy Lebo: interoperability - the minimal amount that you need to agree upon so that you don't need to agree to anything more. ←
13:07:42 <Luc> Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate).
Luc Moreau: Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). ←
13:07:44 <GK> "There is no requirement that a Working Draft have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Candidate Recommendation" -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR
Graham Klyne: "There is no requirement that a Working Draft have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Candidate Recommendation" -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR ←
13:07:49 <Luc> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability
Luc Moreau: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability ←
13:08:10 <sandro> formally it's just "a sufficient level of implementation experience" , noting: "There is no requirement that a Candidate Recommendation have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Proposed Recommendation. However, such experience is strongly encouraged and will generally strengthen its case before the Advisory Committee."
Sandro Hawke: formally it's just "a sufficient level of implementation experience" , noting: "There is no requirement that a Candidate Recommendation have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Proposed Recommendation. However, such experience is strongly encouraged and will generally strengthen its case before the Advisory Committee." ←
13:08:35 <Stian> but implementations are not required to perform queries?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but implementations are not required to perform queries? ←
13:08:46 <khalidbelhajjame> paolo: provenance is a graph, so we can check interoperability, by looking on how different impelementations will answer a set of queries, that are domain independant
Paolo Missier: provenance is a graph, so we can check interoperability, by looking on how different impelementations will answer a set of queries, that are domain independant [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:09:03 <khalidbelhajjame> q+
Khalid Belhajjame: q+ ←
13:09:15 <Stian> I'm not going to implmenent any queries in Taverna-PROV - if you want to query, do a SPARQL
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I'm not going to implmenent any queries in Taverna-PROV - if you want to query, do a SPARQL ←
13:09:15 <ivan> ack Paolo
Ivan Herman: ack Paolo ←
13:09:24 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: but my application may not be able to answer any of those queries
Paul Groth: but my application may not be able to answer any of those queries [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:10:19 <GK> q+ to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced provenance and performed useful functions with it.
Graham Klyne: q+ to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced provenance and performed useful functions with it. ←
13:10:22 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: there is an algorithm there that tries to match the queries and the answers given by the implementation?
Simon Miles: there is an algorithm there that tries to match the queries and the answers given by the implementation? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:11:00 <Stian> say a visualisation implementation - how do you 'query' that? You can say that you should be able to follow the derivation path, for instance.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: say a visualisation implementation - how do you 'query' that? You can say that you should be able to follow the derivation path, for instance. ←
13:11:09 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
13:12:05 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
13:12:05 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced ←
13:12:08 <Zakim> ... provenance and performed useful functions with it.
Zakim IRC Bot: ... provenance and performed useful functions with it. ←
13:12:13 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←
13:12:43 <Stian> 'successful' and 'useful' difficult
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 'successful' and 'useful' difficult ←
13:12:54 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: here are other applications that were able consume the provenance produced by a given application
Graham Klyne: here are other applications that were able consume the provenance produced by a given application [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:13:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: identify applications that generate and make use of provenance within the context of the same domain
Luc Moreau: identify applications that generate and make use of provenance within the context of the same domain [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:14:12 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
13:14:14 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
13:14:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:14:26 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: if we can demonstrate that from within one of my applications that produced trust info, in teh context of a single application, can be used by other applications
Luc Moreau: if we can demonstrate that from within one of my applications that produced trust info, in teh context of a single application, can be used by other applications [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:14:40 <GK> (Single application != "interoperability", IMO)
Graham Klyne: (Single application != "interoperability", IMO) ←
13:14:59 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: second: we have two deliverables that are going into that direction that are owl-specific
Luc Moreau: second: we have two deliverables that are going into that direction that are owl-specific [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:15:35 <GK> If it works for OWL/RDF, that validates the model, IMO.
Graham Klyne: If it works for OWL/RDF, that validates the model, IMO. ←
13:15:42 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: this is something that the group have to decide
Ivan Herman: this is something that the group have to decide [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:15:52 <sandro> ( re how SKOS got out of CR .... they set the bar very very low, and no one objected. It looks like it helped that they then went so far over their bar. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009AprJun/0067 )
Sandro Hawke: ( re how SKOS got out of CR .... they set the bar very very low, and no one objected. It looks like it helped that they then went so far over their bar. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009AprJun/0067 ) ←
13:16:02 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: follow the map of skos, and follow the use of prov
Paul Groth: follow the map of skos, and follow the use of prov [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:16:26 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we can build soem test cases to read provenance information, and answer simple queries
Paul Groth: we can build soem test cases to read provenance information, and answer simple queries [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:16:27 <Stian> perhaps PROV-ODM is on the level of vocabulary in SKOS - PROV-O is more on the level of implementations/protocols (except for pure use in OWL imports) PROV-AQ is clearly implementation thing. PROV-SEM - I don't know. Papers?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: perhaps PROV-ODM is on the level of vocabulary in SKOS - PROV-O is more on the level of implementations/protocols (except for pure use in OWL imports) PROV-AQ is clearly implementation thing. PROV-SEM - I don't know. Papers? ←
13:16:51 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
13:17:07 <GK> Paul: nice thought about test suite for checking provenance as a way to validate producers.
Paul Groth: nice thought about test suite for checking provenance as a way to validate producers. [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
13:17:10 <sandro> sounds like a prov validator, not a test suite. useful, but different.
Sandro Hawke: sounds like a prov validator, not a test suite. useful, but different. ←
13:17:31 <GK> @sandro, yes, but it still validates the generator to some extent.
Graham Klyne: @sandro, yes, but it still validates the generator to some extent. ←
13:17:33 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: there are two levels, correctness and usefulness
Paolo Missier: there are two levels, correctness and usefulness [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:17:38 <Luc> PROV-SEM is not at level of REC
Luc Moreau: PROV-SEM is not at level of REC ←
13:17:53 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: usefulness is hard to show
Paolo Missier: usefulness is hard to show [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:18:09 <sandro> @gk, sure but it's not a test suite -- it's not input documents.
Sandro Hawke: @gk, sure but it's not a test suite -- it's not input documents. ←
13:18:11 <GK> @Paolo: it's arguable that usefulness is more important than correctness...
Graham Klyne: @Paolo: it's arguable that usefulness is more important than correctness... ←
13:18:45 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
13:18:46 <smiles> I dont think it is validation. The provenance must be correct before the test suite discussed can run, and the provenance could be used without the test suite passing
Simon Miles: I dont think it is validation. The provenance must be correct before the test suite discussed can run, and the provenance could be used without the test suite passing ←
13:18:50 <khalidbelhajjame> ack paolo
Khalid Belhajjame: ack paolo ←
13:20:20 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we can do two things: one we show a variety of implementations that produce or consume provenance, then a smaller case, we should identify different people that there are two impls that use and consume provenance based on some (test suite?)
Paul Groth: we can do two things: one we show a variety of implementations that produce or consume provenance, then a smaller case, we should identify different people that there are two impls that use and consume provenance based on some (test suite?) [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:21:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
13:21:26 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:21:48 <GK> @Paul: I think there's a useful middle ground - which is to demonstrate applications based on exchange between independent implementations.
Graham Klyne: @Paul: I think there's a useful middle ground - which is to demonstrate applications based on exchange between independent implementations. ←
13:22:31 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we have a task force who have been keen on gatherfing info on implementations
Paul Groth: we have a task force who have been keen on gatherfing info on implementations [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:22:53 <GK> q+ to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria
Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria ←
13:23:04 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
13:23:04 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria ←
13:23:08 <sandro> q+ to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not ←
13:23:23 <Luc> q+ cab we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
Luc Moreau: q+ cab we leverage Tim's suite of examples? ←
13:23:41 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: maybe we can use the survey to draw the success criteria
Graham Klyne: maybe we can use the survey to draw the success criteria [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:23:43 <Luc> q+ to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
Luc Moreau: q+ to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples? ←
13:24:09 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples ←
13:24:31 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: in our survey of implementations, every concepts (rel) is used in at least 2 implementations
Paul Groth: in our survey of implementations, every concepts (rel) is used in at least 2 implementations [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:24:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: and on exchange on provenance, we try to cover most (if not all), the constructs of prov
Paul Groth: and on exchange on provenance, we try to cover most (if not all), the constructs of prov [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:25:02 <pgroth> ack sandro
Paul Groth: ack sandro ←
13:25:02 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not ←
13:25:04 <pgroth> ls
Paul Groth: ls ←
13:25:27 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
13:25:31 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:25:31 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, you wanted to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples? ←
13:25:33 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:25:36 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: If we can make use of Tim examples
Luc Moreau: If we can make use of Tim examples [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:26:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: a benchmark is an example, and a set of questions with known answers.
Paolo Missier: a benchmark is an example, and a set of questions with known answers. [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:26:37 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: not domain dependant
Simon Miles: not domain dependant [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:26:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: not from the semantics, but rather the vocabulary
Luc Moreau: not from the semantics, but rather the vocabulary [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:27:17 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: tracedTo is an example
Simon Miles: tracedTo is an example [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:27:22 <khalidbelhajjame> luc:: that is the only example we have
Luc Moreau: : that is the only example we have [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:29:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the way to use the constraint is not i nteh specification. In particular, we are not specifying what we can infer
Luc Moreau: the way to use the constraint is not i nteh specification. In particular, we are not specifying what we can infer [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:29:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:29:28 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
13:30:02 <tlebo> a really bad draft at permitting tool makes to self-list their capabilities and quantifying the interoperabilities: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/How_to_convince_ourselves_that_PROV_facilitates_interoperability
Timothy Lebo: a really bad draft at permitting tool makers to self-list their capabilities and quantifying the interoperabilities: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/How_to_convince_ourselves_that_PROV_facilitates_interoperability ←
13:30:12 <tlebo> s/makes/makers/
13:30:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: ask Helena and Stephane to start this activity
Paul Groth: ask Helena and Stephane to start this activity [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:31:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: in other WGs, was there any test suite that were produced?
Luc Moreau: in other WGs, was there any test suite that were produced? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:31:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: there is a language for text reporting, and there are tools out there who consume the text produced by the tool
Ivan Herman: there is a language for text reporting, and there are tools out there who consume the text produced by the tool [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:32:19 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description ←
13:32:45 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/ ←
13:32:48 <tlebo> @ivan, link to that RDF tester?
Timothy Lebo: @ivan, link to that RDF tester? ←
13:33:45 <ivan> tlebo: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
Timothy Lebo: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/ [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
13:33:50 <pgroth> Action: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
ACTION: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) ←
13:33:50 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Engage
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Engage ←
13:33:52 <tlebo> thanks!
Timothy Lebo: thanks! ←
13:34:07 <pgroth> Action: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
ACTION: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) ←
13:34:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-54 - Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10]. ←
13:34:18 <ivan> tlebo: this is an RDFa tester, not RDF!!
Timothy Lebo: this is an RDFa tester, not RDF!! [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
13:34:32 <Stian> ( http://www.flightstats.com/go/Airport/delays.do?airportCode=AMS says now EXCESSIVE DELAYS )
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ( http://www.flightstats.com/go/Airport/delays.do?airportCode=AMS says now EXCESSIVE DELAYS ) ←
13:37:13 <pgroth> Proposed: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs)
PROPOSED: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs) ←
13:37:32 <pgroth> Accepted: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs)
RESOLVED: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs) ←
13:39:08 <khalidbelhajjame> Intero-session closed
Khalid Belhajjame: Intero-session closed ←
13:52:35 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
(No events recorded for 13 minutes)
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF ←
13:52:37 <khalidbelhajjame> prov-sem session (cont.)
Khalid Belhajjame: prov-sem session (cont.) ←
13:54:06 <tlebo> others have gone through the pain, too :-)
Timothy Lebo: others have gone through the pain, too :-) ←
13:54:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: tried to systematize the translation prov-dm -> provo
James Cheney: tried to systematize the translation prov-dm -> provo [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:54:44 <khalidbelhajjame> section Translating element formulas
Khalid Belhajjame: section Translating element formulas ←
13:56:04 <tlebo> I think this should be at the bottom of prov-o HTML
Timothy Lebo: I think this should be at the bottom of prov-o HTML ←
13:56:45 <dgarijo> @tim: not a bad idea.
@tim: not a bad idea. ←
13:56:57 <Stian> we talked about using OWL annotations for notes
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we talked about using OWL annotations for notes ←
13:57:27 <tlebo> owl annotations are on single instances? I thought just on a triple.
Timothy Lebo: owl annotations are on single instances? I thought just on a triple. ←
13:57:53 <GK> (I was minded to suggest removing the stuff about Annotations, as being used primarily for provenance of accounts by my reading.)
Graham Klyne: (I was minded to suggest removing the stuff about Annotations, as being used primarily for provenance of accounts by my reading.) ←
13:58:04 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what is the role if this?
Paul Groth: what is the role if this? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
13:59:04 <GK> Luc: how do we take this forward?
Luc Moreau: how do we take this forward? [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
13:59:45 <GK> (My answer to Luc might be that this is a matter for the editors.)
Graham Klyne: (My answer to Luc might be that this is a matter for the editors.) ←
14:00:06 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
14:00:16 <khalidbelhajjame> Section Questions/Problems
Khalid Belhajjame: Section Questions/Problems ←
<pgroth> Topic: Planning
Summary: The session focused on planning. To facilatate mapping of prov-o and prov-dm, the group agreed to adopt the use of the ProvRDF mappings page to synchronize the two documents after the ontology reached the level of prov-dm WD3. To facilate this usage, it was agreed to ensure that the ProvRDF mappings page was also aligned with prov wd3. It was agreed that the editors would draft an updated version of prov-aq to address all outstanding issues. Additionally, the group agreed to start producing an xml schema. The editors of the prov-dm agreed to draft an simplified introduction to it reflecting the groups desire for simplfication. Finally, Paul agreed to summarize the F2F for an email to the whole group as well as in a blog post.
<pgroth> Summary: The session focused on planning. To facilatate mapping of prov-o and prov-dm, the group agreed to adopt the use of the ProvRDF mappings page to synchronize the two documents after the ontology reached the level of prov-dm WD3. To facilate this usage, it was agreed to ensure that the ProvRDF mappings page was also aligned with prov wd3. It was agreed that the editors would draft an updated version of prov-aq to address all outstanding issues. Additionally, the group agreed to start producing an xml schema. The editors of the prov-dm agreed to draft an simplified introduction to it reflecting the groups desire for simplfication. Finally, Paul agreed to summarize the F2F for an email to the whole group as well as in a blog post.
14:00:57 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:01:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:01:23 <GK> q+ to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc.
Graham Klyne: q+ to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc. ←
14:01:56 <Stian> tlebo: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#Extended_Annotations perhaps
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#Extended_Annotations perhaps [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
14:02:03 <Luc> ack tle
Luc Moreau: ack tle ←
14:02:34 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
14:02:34 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc. ←
14:02:54 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: tim? you are supportive of this effort?
Luc Moreau: tim? you are supportive of this effort? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:03:39 <jcheney> Luc's question is how to integrate this into other things?
James Cheney: Luc's question is how to integrate this into other things? ←
14:04:02 <khalidbelhajjame> Tim: this is explicit form that should be used by the rest of the prov-o team
Timothy Lebo: this is explicit form that should be used by the rest of the prov-o team [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:04:10 <khalidbelhajjame> q+
Khalid Belhajjame: q+ ←
14:04:35 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: what process would you suggest Tim?
Luc Moreau: what process would you suggest Tim? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:05:25 <khalidbelhajjame> Tim: the previous mappings can be translated just like James did
Timothy Lebo: the previous mappings can be translated just like James did [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:05:47 <tlebo> one step: DM editors ensure that all "left sides" are listed.
Timothy Lebo: one step: DM editors ensure that all "left sides" are listed. ←
14:05:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:06:15 <tlebo> a second step: PROV-O team sets the "right sides" in this notation
Timothy Lebo: a second step: PROV-O team sets the "right sides" in this notation ←
14:06:41 <GK> It seems to me this is a very effective way of bridging the DM presentation to RDF cognoscenti
Graham Klyne: It seems to me this is a very effective way of bridging the DM presentation to RDF cognoscenti ←
14:06:44 <dgarijo> some binary relationships are missing, like a used e, e wasGeneratedBy a.
some binary relationships are missing, like a used e, e wasGeneratedBy a. ←
14:06:56 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: translation rules, we should use each rule endorced by the wg
Luc Moreau: translation rules, we should use each rule endorced by the wg [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:07:13 <Luc> ack k
Luc Moreau: ack k ←
14:07:17 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
14:07:30 <Stian> and while editing, having these in the end of PROV-O is also good as it sh/would show what mappings were used in that particular version
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and while editing, having these in the end of PROV-O is also good as it sh/would show what mappings were used in that particular version ←
14:07:38 <tlebo> This is our status bar!
Timothy Lebo: This is our status bar! ←
14:07:53 <GK> Khalid: James' rute of translation, rather than translation for every construct, try to come up with translation pattern?
Khalid Belhajjame: James' rute of translation, rather than translation for every construct, try to come up with translation pattern? [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←
14:08:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:08:09 <tlebo> remember the port of .... ?
Timothy Lebo: remember the port of .... ? ←
14:08:18 <pgroth> quote of tony hoare
Paul Groth: quote of tony hoare ←
14:08:24 <tlebo> thx
Timothy Lebo: thx ←
14:09:25 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/229 proposes (among other things) factoring out attributes in the DM.
Graham Klyne: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/229 proposes (among other things) factoring out attributes in the DM. ←
14:09:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: we agreed on a proces on how the development of prov-o to first start with the ontology, do we need to add to that the additional effort to encode the rules that James illustrated?
Paul Groth: we agreed on a proces on how the development of prov-o to first start with the ontology, do we need to add to that the additional effort to encode the rules that James illustrated? [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:09:59 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
14:09:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:10:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
14:10:03 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
14:10:10 <dgarijo> +1 to the proposed process
+1 to the proposed process ←
14:10:12 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
14:10:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
14:10:25 <Stian> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
14:11:00 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: this can also be useful for the primer to understad what has been changed in prov-o and might affect the primer
Simon Miles: this can also be useful for the primer to understad what has been changed in prov-o and might affect the primer [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:11:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:12:20 <tlebo> q+ to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF)
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF) ←
14:13:26 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: if there is a proposal for change, then it still should be raised as an issue
Luc Moreau: if there is a proposal for change, then it still should be raised as an issue [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:14:54 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: it should be up to the chairs of prov-dm and prov-o to raise change against the primer, when things change in either prov-dm or prov-o
Paul Groth: it should be up to the chairs of prov-dm and prov-o to raise change against the primer, when things change in either prov-dm or prov-o [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:14:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:15:09 <khalidbelhajjame> to raise issues not change :-)
Khalid Belhajjame: to raise issues not change :-) ←
14:15:11 <Luc> ack tl
Luc Moreau: ack tl ←
14:15:11 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at ←
14:15:14 <Zakim> ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF)
Zakim IRC Bot: ... http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF) ←
14:15:20 <Stian> we have in the PROV-O document just kept a flat changelog as http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#changes-since-first-public-working-draft as well
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we have in the PROV-O document just kept a flat changelog as http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#changes-since-first-public-working-draft as well ←
14:15:31 <GK> (I woudn't raise a second issue on the primer, but I won't argue the case if the respective editors are OK with it.)
Graham Klyne: (I woudn't raise a second issue on the primer, but I won't argue the case if the respective editors are OK with it.) ←
14:15:52 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the translation rules specified is not complete yet
James Cheney: the translation rules specified is not complete yet [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:16:33 <GK> In line with other decisions, should we aim to align the rules with DM3, then let process track?
Graham Klyne: In line with other decisions, should we aim to align the rules with DM3, then let process track? ←
14:16:50 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: the issues that are raised in the tracker and in the prov-dm, and can be used by prov-o team to identify the constructs (relationships) at risk
Luc Moreau: the issues that are raised in the tracker and in the prov-dm, and can be used by prov-o team to identify the constructs (relationships) at risk [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:17:32 <tlebo> sounds great.
Timothy Lebo: sounds great. ←
14:18:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:18:21 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF will get into sync with DM WD3
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF will get into sync with DM WD3 ←
14:18:49 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: the translation rules seem to be a useful tool for synchronizing the updates
Luc Moreau: the translation rules seem to be a useful tool for synchronizing the updates [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←
14:18:57 <tlebo> we can handle the various issues in PROV-O team.
Timothy Lebo: we can handle the various issues in PROV-O team. ←
14:19:24 <khalidbelhajjame> prov-sem ended
Khalid Belhajjame: prov-sem ended ←
14:20:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:20:06 <tlebo> the timetable for http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF is before I go to bed tonight :-)
Timothy Lebo: the timetable for http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF is before I go to bed tonight :-) ←
14:21:08 <tlebo> two weeks from now, we have an OWL file for WD3
Timothy Lebo: two weeks from now, we have an OWL file for WD3 ←
14:21:08 <tlebo> yes
Timothy Lebo: yes ←
14:21:10 <pgroth> 2 weeks for alignment of prov-o ontology to prov-dm wd3
Paul Groth: 2 weeks for alignment of prov-o ontology to prov-dm wd3 ←
14:21:54 <tlebo> :-)
Timothy Lebo: :-) ←
14:21:58 <GK> I won't be available for the 17 Feb telecon. Just saying.
Graham Klyne: I won't be available for the 17 Feb telecon. Just saying. ←
14:22:39 <tlebo> what about the owl file will we discusson the 16th?
Timothy Lebo: what about the owl file will we discus the 16th? ←
14:22:46 <tlebo> s/son//
14:22:58 <Paolo> .
Paolo Missier: . ←
14:23:09 <tlebo> ok
Timothy Lebo: ok ←
14:23:11 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:23:17 <stephenc> Very tempting to implement abstract syntax <=> rdf translation as prolog
Stephen Cresswell: Very tempting to implement abstract syntax <=> rdf translation as prolog ←
14:23:32 <tlebo> so, the action is just due by the 17.
Timothy Lebo: so, the action is just due by the 17. ←
14:23:42 <pgroth> Action: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon
ACTION: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon ←
14:23:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [on Michael Lang - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-55 - Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [on Michael Lang - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:24:17 <jcheney> @stephenc, yes, that's one of the next steps I had in mind.
James Cheney: @stephenc, yes, that's one of the next steps I had in mind. ←
14:28:15 <dgarijo> @tlebo, stian, khalid: are we supposed to include a complete example with the ontology?
@tlebo, stian, khalid: are we supposed to include a complete example with the ontology? ←
14:28:37 <dgarijo> it would help the review.
it would help the review. ←
14:29:05 <tlebo> satya doesn't want instance data in the owl file.
Timothy Lebo: satya doesn't want instance data in the owl file. ←
14:29:27 <dgarijo> :) well then an additional file..
:) well then an additional file.. ←
14:29:36 <tlebo> so we'll need a second file. But better, I want to use an annotation property to point from provo classes to examples that use them.
Timothy Lebo: so we'll need a second file. But better, I want to use an annotation property to point from provo classes to examples that use them. ←
14:29:49 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, not in the ontology. I understand that we will be focusing just on the ontology itself
Khalid Belhajjame: @Daniel, not in the ontology. I understand that we will be focusing just on the ontology itself ←
14:29:51 <tlebo> (and properties)
Timothy Lebo: (and properties) ←
14:29:51 <dgarijo> ahh ok.
ahh ok. ←
14:29:58 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:30:17 <dgarijo> @khalid, I know, not in the final version of the ontology. I was referring just for the review.
@khalid, I know, not in the final version of the ontology. I was referring just for the review. ←
14:31:10 <stephenc> @jcheney swi-prolog has direct rdf support. Abstract syntax is already "deviant prolog" - so no parsers to write. It would also be easy to generate a latex version for the wiki from a prolog version of the mapping rule.
Stephen Cresswell: @jcheney swi-prolog has direct rdf support. Abstract syntax is already "deviant prolog" - so no parsers to write. It would also be easy to generate a latex version for the wiki from a prolog version of the mapping rule. ←
14:31:16 <Stian> tlebo: feel free :) (annotation properties)
Timothy Lebo: feel free :) (annotation properties) [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
14:31:33 <jcheney> @stephenc What about sicstus :)
James Cheney: @stephenc What about sicstus :) ←
14:31:41 <tlebo> @ivan, do you have a handful of good vocab annotation vocabs? (like the ones Ian uses)?
Timothy Lebo: @ivan, do you have a handful of good vocab annotation vocabs? (like the ones Ian uses)? ←
14:31:56 <Stian> @khalidbelhajjame: I've checked in for our flight - seat 23F (window) - perhaps you want to check in as well
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @khalidbelhajjame: I've checked in for our flight - seat 23F (window) - perhaps you want to check in as well ←
14:31:57 <stephenc> @jcheney It's not free!
Stephen Cresswell: @jcheney It's not free! ←
14:32:07 <pgroth> action: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon
ACTION: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon ←
14:32:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-56 - Update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:32:19 <jcheney> True, but Edinburgh has a site license...
James Cheney: True, but Edinburgh has a site license... ←
14:32:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:32:37 <ivan> problem is: there are more:-)
Ivan Herman: problem is: there are more:-) ←
14:32:46 <ivan> the scientific community has some of those
Ivan Herman: the scientific community has some of those ←
14:32:53 <tlebo> @ivan, I'm always pleased when I run into them, but have never gathered up a list of them.
Timothy Lebo: @ivan, I'm always pleased when I run into them, but have never gathered up a list of them. ←
14:33:29 <tlebo> http://prefix.cc/vs for example
Timothy Lebo: http://prefix.cc/vs for example ←
14:33:51 <ivan> Tim, I do not have an exhaustive list. I think the best two are one coming form the Mass. General Hostpital (TIm Clark) and the other, I believe, from Lawrence LL. Will try to find a link
Ivan Herman: Tim, I do not have an exhaustive list. I think the best two are one coming form the Mass. General Hostpital (TIm Clark) and the other, I believe, from Los Alamos. Will try to find a link ←
14:34:35 <ivan> s/Lawrence LL/Los Alamos/
14:34:39 <ivan> that one is: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/beta/
Ivan Herman: that one is: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/beta/ ←
14:35:36 <ivan> look at http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/ as well, there is a group looking into this
Ivan Herman: look at http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/ as well, there is a group looking into this ←
14:35:57 <ivan> http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
Ivan Herman: http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/ ←
14:36:03 <ivan> problem - none of these are stable
Ivan Herman: problem - none of these are stable ←
14:36:19 <pgroth> action: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues
ACTION: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues ←
14:36:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-57 - Draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:36:32 <tlebo> @ivan thanks!
Timothy Lebo: @ivan thanks! ←
14:40:02 <pgroth> action: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group
ACTION: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group ←
14:40:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Write a summary email of f2f for the larger group [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-58 - Write a summary email of f2f for the larger group [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:40:21 <pgroth> action: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development
ACTION: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development ←
14:40:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Write a blog post about current status on development [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-59 - Write a blog post about current status on development [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:43:59 <pgroth> action: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema
ACTION: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema ←
14:43:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Kickstart discussion on xml schema [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-60 - Kickstart discussion on xml schema [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:46:03 <tlebo> I'm interesting in helping the XML (to write a GRDDL to rescue the XML into RDF) (and perhaps to write some example xpaths that exercise the XML) no xml schema experience, tons of xslt experience.
Timothy Lebo: I'm interesting in helping the XML (to write a GRDDL to rescue the XML into RDF) (and perhaps to write some example xpaths that exercise the XML) no xml schema experience, tons of xslt experience. ←
14:47:17 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:52:34 <Luc> q?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:52:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
14:54:22 <Stian> I've got XSD experience, but don't think I have the bandwith
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I've got XSD experience, but don't think I have the bandwith ←
14:54:30 <Stian> can pretend I'm 'expert'
Stian Soiland-Reyes: can pretend I'm 'expert' ←
14:55:29 <GK> Our charter calls for: D1. PIL Conceptual Model (REC), D2. PIL Formal Model (REC), D3. PIL Formal Semantics (NOTE), which are mapped to roughly: PROV-DM, PROV-O and semantics. But there' a lot of formal-ish material in PROV-DM which doesn't really belong in PROV-O. Should we try and factor away the inference/constraint material in PROV-DM from a basic and accessible description of the underlying model?
Graham Klyne: Our charter calls for: D1. PIL Conceptual Model (REC), D2. PIL Formal Model (REC), D3. PIL Formal Semantics (NOTE), which are mapped to roughly: PROV-DM, PROV-O and semantics. But there' a lot of formal-ish material in PROV-DM which doesn't really belong in PROV-O. Should we try and factor away the inference/constraint material in PROV-DM from a basic and accessible description of the underlying model? ←
14:57:11 <pgroth> action: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3
ACTION: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 ←
14:57:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-61 - Update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10]. ←
14:57:18 <Stian> khalidbelhajjame: start your skype :)
Khalid Belhajjame: start your skype :) [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
14:59:22 <jcheney> That should be due February 23...
James Cheney: That should be due February 23... ←
15:00:00 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:01:07 <tlebo> luc: if we don't have things, there is not specOf and altOf ?
Luc Moreau: if we don't have things, there is not specOf and altOf ? [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
15:01:18 <tlebo> did I get that right?
Timothy Lebo: did I get that right? ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:07:59 <dgarijo> luc: are "objects" descriptions?
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Luc Moreau: are "objects" descriptions? ←
15:08:37 <dgarijo> jcheney: for description I'm not sure about the connotations
James Cheney: for description I'm not sure about the connotations ←
15:08:45 <tlebo> @sandro, you there?
Timothy Lebo: @sandro, you there? ←
15:08:58 <GK> I think "description" is part of the ;language, not what we are describing.
Graham Klyne: I think "description" is part of the ;language, not what we are describing. ←
15:09:44 <dgarijo> luc: instead of objects should we talk about states of resources, or partial states of resources?
Luc Moreau: instead of objects should we talk about states of resources, or partial states of resources? ←
15:09:55 <GK> q+ to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this
Graham Klyne: q+ to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this ←
15:10:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:10:22 <dgarijo> jcheney: objects are kind of a weird middle level
James Cheney: objects are kind of a weird middle level ←
15:10:24 <GK> (this = how PROV-DM entoities relate to resources)
Graham Klyne: (this = how PROV-DM entoities relate to resources) ←
15:11:50 <tlebo> - awww:Resources are semiotic referents denoted and awww:identifiedBy URIs. Requesting the URI via HTTP will return a Resource Representation that describes the referent.
Timothy Lebo: - awww:Resources are semiotic referents denoted and awww:identifiedBy URIs. Requesting the URI via HTTP will return a Resource Representation that describes the referent. ←
15:12:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:13:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: yesterday we said: let's do thing and just continue from there. What would the ramifications be for the semantics?
Paul Groth: yesterday we said: let's do thing and just continue from there. What would the ramifications be for the semantics? ←
15:13:08 <GK> q+ to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any construct. The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things.
Graham Klyne: q+ to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any construct. The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things. ←
15:13:49 <dgarijo> ivan: the different between thing and objects dissapear
Ivan Herman: the different between thing and objects dissapear ←
15:13:57 <dgarijo> s
s ←
15:15:59 <dgarijo> jcheney: in order to say that an attribute is true I have to measure the time of the assertion, that was part of the semantics
James Cheney: in order to say that an attribute is true I have to measure the time of the assertion, that was part of the semantics ←
15:16:39 <dgarijo> luc: Remove things and then rename objects into thing
Luc Moreau: Remove things and then rename objects into thing ←
15:16:46 <tlebo> "scruffiness" means that asserters name and refer to less specialized Entities, while the "propers" would object to that modeling because they think more specialized Entities should be named and referred to. For example, scruffies describe http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/ when propers would want them to describe http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/
Timothy Lebo: "scruffiness" means that asserters name and refer to less specialized Entities, while the "propers" would object to that modeling because they think more specialized Entities should be named and referred to. For example, scruffies describe http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/ when propers would want them to describe http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/ ←
15:18:09 <dgarijo> gk: the scruffiness is maybe isatisfaible
Graham Klyne: the scruffiness is maybe isatisfaible ←
15:19:03 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
15:19:55 <Stian> I don't understand "over time" here
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I don't understand "over time" here ←
15:19:55 <dgarijo> khalid: when we have the things, then can they be mutable or not?
Khalid Belhajjame: when we have the things, then can they be mutable or not? ←
15:20:56 <tlebo> I hope people are not considering "web resources" to be exclusively computer files. I'm a web resource....
Timothy Lebo: I hope people are not considering "web resources" to be exclusively computer files. I'm a web resource.... ←
15:21:33 <Stian> do you mean that someone says in a single graph: :car a owl:Thing; :colour :red . :ColourFinder a prov:Activity ; prov:used :car . :blue prov:wasGeneratedBy :ColourFinder; prov:wasDerivedFrom :car .
Stian Soiland-Reyes: do you mean that someone says in a single graph: :car a owl:Thing; :colour :red . :ColourFinder a prov:Activity ; prov:used :car . :blue prov:wasGeneratedBy :ColourFinder; prov:wasDerivedFrom :car . ←
15:21:51 <Stian> (assuming that colourfinder found the :colour attribute)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (assuming that colourfinder found the :colour attribute) ←
15:22:32 <dgarijo> gk: this doesn't talk about attirbutes other than the others that vary with time
Graham Klyne: this doesn't talk about attirbutes other than the others that vary with time ←
15:23:06 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
15:23:36 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:23:39 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
15:23:40 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure I agree. I think "resource" can be anything, but if you're going to put the word "web" in there, it's short of "web-accessible". not quite sure if that covers non-IR resources or not, but it only covers things with working IRIs.
Sandro Hawke: tlebo, I'm not sure I agree. I think "resource" can be anything, but if you're going to put the word "web" in there, it's short of "web-accessible". not quite sure if that covers non-IR resources or not, but it only covers things with working IRIs. ←
15:24:00 <sandro> (not sure if you have a working IRI or now)
Sandro Hawke: (not sure if you have a working IRI or not) ←
15:24:06 <sandro> s/now/not/
15:24:35 <dgarijo> paul: if we do what luc proposed, do we deal scruffiness?
Paul Groth: if we do what luc proposed, do we deal scruffiness? ←
15:24:47 <dgarijo> gk: what do you mean by scruffiness?
Graham Klyne: what do you mean by scruffiness? ←
15:25:22 <dgarijo> pgroth: if you use the semantics, it will come up and barf: you're not doing it right ->structured guidance.
Paul Groth: if you use the semantics, it will come up and barf: you're not doing it right ->structured guidance. ←
15:25:27 <tlebo> Web Resources disjointUnion ( non-Information-Resource InformationResource )
Timothy Lebo: Web Resources disjointUnion ( non-Information-Resource InformationResource ) ←
15:25:38 <dgarijo> ... in RDF we do this all the time
... in RDF we do this all the time ←
15:26:04 <dgarijo> ... the intention is to make it easy to apply
... the intention is to make it easy to apply ←
15:27:20 <tlebo> Web Resource := anything denoted by a URI (though, happy to get corrected with a pointer to a doc)
Timothy Lebo: Web Resource := anything denoted by a URI (though, happy to get corrected with a pointer to a doc) ←
15:29:02 <tlebo> :Web_Resource owl:equivalentClass awww:Resource .
Timothy Lebo: :Web_Resource owl:equivalentClass awww:Resource . ←
15:29:43 <dgarijo> luc: maybe Paolo, james an luc should sit around the table, discuss and then come back
Luc Moreau: maybe Paolo, james an luc should sit around the table, discuss and then come back ←
15:30:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:30:44 <dgarijo> paul: the semantics is how you should do provenance, but it is fine if you don't do it
Paul Groth: the semantics is how you should do provenance, but it is fine if you don't do it ←
15:31:39 <GK> ack gk
Graham Klyne: ack gk ←
15:31:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this and to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this and to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the ←
15:31:42 <dgarijo> luc: how can I map those assertions into the semantics. At the moment I don't see it, so it doesn't help
Luc Moreau: how can I map those assertions into the semantics. At the moment I don't see it, so it doesn't help ←
15:31:42 <Zakim> ... semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any
Zakim IRC Bot: ... semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any ←
15:31:42 <Zakim> ... construct. The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things.
Zakim IRC Bot: ... construct. The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things. ←
15:32:32 <dgarijo> gk: we can take out a layer from the model without necessarily having to take it from the semantics
Graham Klyne: we can take out a layer from the model without necessarily having to take it from the semantics ←
15:34:18 <Stian> q?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q? ←
15:34:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:34:25 <dgarijo> luc: instead of droping entities in the data model, we drop things in the data model and we map them to the semantics
Luc Moreau: instead of droping entities in the data model, we drop things in the data model and we map them to the semantics ←
15:34:38 <pgroth> q+ ivan
Paul Groth: q+ ivan ←
15:34:45 <pgroth> q- ivan
Paul Groth: q- ivan ←
15:34:50 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
15:35:21 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
15:35:29 <dgarijo> jcheney: there is no syntax for things (I don't think it is necessary).
James Cheney: there is no syntax for things (I don't think it is necessary). ←
15:36:00 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:36:34 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
15:36:35 <dgarijo> paolo: makes perfect sense what gk said.
Paolo Missier: makes perfect sense what gk said. ←
15:37:00 <dgarijo> paolo: I don't see the need for that in the DM
Paolo Missier: I don't see the need for that in the DM ←
15:38:45 <dgarijo> luc: the scruffy version is objects/entities for which there is no lifetime defined?
Luc Moreau: the scruffy version is objects/entities for which there is no lifetime defined? ←
15:39:12 <dgarijo> luc: so none of this machinery works! they don't have lifetime
Luc Moreau: so none of this machinery works! they don't have lifetime ←
15:39:33 <tlebo> scruffies assert among Entities that are higher in the specializationOf chain
Timothy Lebo: scruffies assert among Entities that are higher in the specializationOf chain ←
15:39:45 <dgarijo> stian: how do you know it doesn't work? it is just not stated
Stian Soiland-Reyes: how do you know it doesn't work? it is just not stated ←
15:40:35 <Stian> :blogPost prov:wasAuthoredBy :paul is fine as long as you don't also say :paul prov:wasDerivedFrom :blogPost
Stian Soiland-Reyes: :blogPost prov:wasAuthoredBy :paul is fine as long as you don't also say :paul prov:wasDerivedFrom :blogPost ←
15:40:59 <dgarijo> paolo: we may not have inconsistencies, but we could have consequences.
Paolo Missier: we may not have inconsistencies, but we could have consequences. ←
15:41:47 <Stian> or say you use <http://www.example.com/paulsHomepage/> for both identifiers :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: or say you use <http://www.example.com/paulsHomepage/> for both identifiers :) ←
15:41:54 <dgarijo> luc: action to prov-dm editors: write a separate document to no longer talk about things in prov dm, just entities. Things will be the mechanism by which we'll provide some semantics.
Luc Moreau: action to prov-dm editors: write a separate document to no longer talk about things in prov dm, just entities. Things will be the mechanism by which we'll provide some semantics. ←
15:42:26 <dgarijo> ... we'l analyze the meaning of scruffy provenance vs more sofisticated and comlpete provenance
... we'l analyze the meaning of scruffy provenance vs more sofisticated and comlpete provenance ←
15:42:54 <dgarijo> paul: one conclusion is that people is keen on not having entities
Paul Groth: one conclusion is that people is keen on not having entities ←
15:43:02 <dgarijo> ... it simplifies the model
... it simplifies the model ←
15:43:21 <dgarijo> ... avoid using intervals, freezing, etc.
... avoid using intervals, freezing, etc. ←
15:43:25 <GK> @paul +lots!
Graham Klyne: @paul +lots! ←
15:43:31 <tlebo> :-)
Timothy Lebo: :-) ←
15:43:57 <dgarijo> paul: please take that under consideration.
Paul Groth: please take that under consideration. ←
15:44:19 <dgarijo> smiles: in the primer that's our approach
Simon Miles: in the primer that's our approach ←
15:44:41 <Stian> Satya Sahoo: "Attributes on an Entity SHOULD be consistent across all involvements of the entity in other provenance records"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Satya Sahoo: "Attributes on an Entity SHOULD be true across all involvements of the entity in other provenance records" ←
15:44:52 <dgarijo> luc: we could tackle that after the second half of the dm, reduced to a minimum
Luc Moreau: we could tackle that after the second half of the dm, reduced to a minimum ←
15:45:16 <Stian> s/consistent/true/ or similar (people don't like 'consistent')
15:45:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: I really like the interaction between semantics and dm
Paul Groth: I really like the interaction between semantics and dm ←
15:45:38 <dgarijo> luc:it confirms that semantics should be a note.
Luc Moreau: it confirms that semantics should be a note. ←
15:46:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:46:25 <dgarijo> luc: will go back to the working group in 2 weeks
Luc Moreau: will go back to the working group in 2 weeks ←
15:46:49 <Stian> KL1093 16:20 to Manchester was cancelled
Stian Soiland-Reyes: KL1093 16:20 to Manchester was cancelled ←
15:47:19 <dgarijo> @Stian :S
@Stian :S ←
15:48:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:49:33 <pgroth> action: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan
ACTION: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan ←
15:49:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-62 - Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10]. ←
15:49:58 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:50:24 <pgroth> luc: thanking everyone
Luc Moreau: thanking everyone [ Scribe Assist by Paul Groth ] ←
15:50:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: thanks to ivan
Paul Groth: thanks to ivan ←
15:50:49 <dgarijo> ... and to all.
... and to all. ←
15:51:03 <Stian> @dgarijo they seem to be recovering and flying out a few 14:00 flights now - me and Khalid are hopefully fine by 21 - but
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @dgarijo they seem to be recovering and flying out a few 14:00 flights now - me and Khalid are hopefully fine by 21 - but ←
15:51:52 <tlebo> bye bye :-)
Timothy Lebo: bye bye :-) ←
15:52:02 <pgroth> tlebo awesomeness!
Paul Groth: tlebo awesomeness! ←
15:52:05 <satya> @Daniel: Thanks Daniel again for hosting us!
Satya Sahoo: @Daniel: Thanks Daniel again for hosting us! ←
15:52:18 <Zakim> - +31.20.598.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +31.20.598.aaaa ←
15:52:19 <satya> bye
Satya Sahoo: bye ←
15:52:21 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
15:52:24 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:52:24 <tlebo> Thanks, @daniel!
Timothy Lebo: Thanks, @daniel! ←
15:52:28 <Zakim> -??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1 ←
15:52:29 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended ←
15:52:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Sandro, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo ←
15:52:32 <GK> Done!!!
Graham Klyne: Done!!! ←
15:53:14 <dgarijo> bye all
bye all ←
15:53:39 <Stian> http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do?airportCode=AMS&airportQueryType=0 for 16:00 says pretty much everything cancelled - at 14:00 there are 3 flights that went out
Stian Soiland-Reyes: http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do?airportCode=AMS&airportQueryType=0 for 16:00 says pretty much everything cancelled - at 14:00 there are 3 flights that went out ←
15:55:51 <pgroth> zakim, end telecon
Paul Groth: zakim, end telecon ←
15:55:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end telecon', pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'end telecon', pgroth ←
15:55:59 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telecon ←
15:55:59 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
15:55:59 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
15:56:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
15:56:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
15:56:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> I see 10 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 10 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-actions.rdf : ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [1]
ACTION: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [1] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T13-33-50
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T13-33-50 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [2]
ACTION: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [2] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T13-34-07
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T13-34-07 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [3]
ACTION: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [3] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-23-42
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-23-42 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [4]
ACTION: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [4] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-32-07
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-32-07 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [5]
ACTION: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [5] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-36-19
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-36-19 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group [6]
ACTION: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group [6] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-40-02
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-40-02 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development [7]
ACTION: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development [7] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-40-21
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-40-21 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema [8]
ACTION: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema [8] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-43-59
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-43-59 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [9]
ACTION: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [9] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-57-11
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T14-57-11 ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan [10]
ACTION: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan [10] ←
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T15-49-33
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/03-prov-irc#T15-49-33 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe