IRC log of prov on 2011-06-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:59 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:51:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:52:00 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:00 [trackbot]
Date: 09 June 2011
14:52:15 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
14:52:25 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:25 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:48 [pgroth]
14:52:50 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:53:05 [pgroth]
Chair: pgroth
14:53:26 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:29 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:54:36 [Zakim]
14:54:52 [Luc]
zakim, ??P3 is me
14:54:52 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:55:12 [Zakim]
14:55:14 [Zakim]
14:55:27 [pgroth]
Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
14:55:27 [Zakim]
sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
14:55:37 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:55:54 [pgroth]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:55:54 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:56:11 [Zakim]
14:56:13 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #prov
14:56:49 [estephan]
estephan has joined #prov
14:56:52 [Zakim]
14:57:01 [pgroth]
would someone be willing to scribe?
14:57:32 [Zakim]
14:57:46 [Zakim]
14:57:52 [jorn]
Zakim, ??p5 is me
14:57:52 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
14:58:14 [Lena]
Lena has joined #prov
14:58:32 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
14:58:59 [Zakim]
14:59:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.723.aaaa
14:59:05 [tlebo]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:05 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
14:59:16 [Zakim]
14:59:25 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, ??P3, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20
14:59:43 [frew]
frew has joined #prov
14:59:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.554.aabb
14:59:51 [Luc]
zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:52 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
15:00:02 [Zakim]
15:00:05 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:00:20 [olaf]
olaf has joined #prov
15:00:21 [Zakim]
15:00:24 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P31 is me
15:00:24 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:00:31 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:00:42 [Zakim]
15:01:00 [GK_]
zakim, ??p38 is me
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+GK_; got it
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.093.aacc
15:01:38 [olaf]
zakim, aacc is me
15:01:38 [Zakim]
+olaf; got it
15:01:45 [simoninireland]
simoninireland has joined #prov
15:01:47 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:01:49 [Zakim]
15:01:56 [smiles]
zakim, ??P21 is me
15:01:56 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
15:02:01 [GK_]
(I need to leave promptly at the hour)
15:02:05 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:02:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.832.386.aadd
15:02:17 [Zakim]
15:02:29 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:02:30 [Zakim]
15:02:33 [Zakim]
15:02:59 [Zakim]
15:03:02 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:03:15 [Zakim]
15:03:16 [jorn]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, ??P36, GK_, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd, ??P6, ??P1, ??P7
15:03:23 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P7 is me
15:03:23 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:03:31 [tlebo]
15:03:34 [tlebo]
scribe: tlebo
15:03:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aaee
15:03:40 [jcheney]
AFK for a minute
15:03:51 [pgroth]
15:03:59 [tlebo]
topic: minutes from last week
15:04:02 [dgarijo]
15:04:03 [smiles]
15:04:06 [estephan]
15:04:06 [tlebo]
proposed: accept minutes
15:04:09 [frew]
15:04:11 [olaf]
15:04:11 [GK_]
15:04:12 [simoninireland]
15:04:14 [zednik]
15:04:22 [jorn]
15:04:24 [StephenCresswell]
15:04:24 [tlebo]
15:04:44 [Zakim]
+ +329331aaff
15:04:45 [tlebo]
accepted: minutes
15:04:53 [tlebo]
topic: leaders of task forces
15:04:56 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:05:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.368.aagg
15:05:14 [tlebo]
access and query task force
15:05:17 [tlebo]
connection task force
15:05:17 [Zakim]
15:05:34 [tlebo]
15:05:49 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
15:06:00 [Zakim]
15:06:02 [SamCoppens]
zakim, +329331aaff is me
15:06:02 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
15:06:04 [pgroth]
In a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing
15:06:20 [pgroth]
15:06:26 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:06:30 [paolo_]
paolo_ has joined #prov
15:06:31 [tlebo]
topic: definition of Resource
15:06:39 [tlebo]
issue: objections of definition?
15:06:39 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-20 - Objections of definition? ; please complete additional details at .
15:06:49 [tlebo]
15:06:54 [JImM]
JImM has joined #prov
15:07:05 [tlebo]
accepted: definition for Resource
15:07:12 [pgroth]
15:07:15 [tlebo]
topic: open actions
15:07:26 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
15:07:33 [Luc]
it's not so much a definition of resource, but the subject of provenance
15:07:43 [tlebo]
there were actions for Resource
15:07:51 [dgarijo]
@tlebo: definition for resource or agreement to use the IVPTs?
15:07:54 [tlebo]
there were actions for the Task Forces - on way to being done.
15:07:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aahh
15:08:09 [tlebo]
topic: invited experts have been invited.
15:08:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.449.aaii
15:08:36 [Zakim]
15:08:46 [Yogesh]
zakim, + +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh
15:08:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand '+ +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh', Yogesh
15:08:48 [dgarijo]
i get a lot of noise :(
15:08:49 [tlebo]
invited expert #1. - (broken voice connection)
15:08:59 [Luc]
generally, people who have joined recently may want to send an introduction to the mailing list
15:09:02 [paolo_]
zakim, ??P19 is me
15:09:02 [Zakim]
+paolo_; got it
15:09:12 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:09:14 [jorn]
Zakim, who is noisy?
15:09:25 [Zakim]
jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (9%), ??P36 (13%)
15:09:29 [Yogesh]
zakim, +1.540.449 is Yogesh
15:09:29 [Zakim]
+Yogesh; got it
15:09:36 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute ??P36
15:09:36 [Zakim]
??P36 should now be muted
15:10:02 [Zakim]
15:10:07 [tlebo]
any other intros on phone? please introduce yourselves on the mailing list.
15:10:19 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P24 is really me
15:10:19 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:10:22 [tlebo]
topic: scribes
15:10:26 [tlebo]
please sign up.
15:10:29 [pgroth]
15:11:02 [tlebo]
topic: plans from Connection Task Force for Face-to-Face meeting
15:11:09 [Zakim]
15:11:18 [pgroth]
15:11:24 [Zakim]
15:11:30 [jorn]
Zakim, ??p5 is me
15:11:30 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:11:56 [dgarijo]
15:12:07 [tlebo]
simon: they proposed on mailing list, no objections yet. 2 questions - 1) identity and 2) location; how to obtain and embedding in HTML.
15:12:30 [tlebo]
simon: inspired by incubator proposal in report.
15:12:39 [Zakim]
15:12:56 [tlebo]
simon: want to start populating templates. feedback on templates welcome, too.
15:13:43 [tlebo]
simon: want to discover issues in next week so we have them to discuss at F2F.
15:13:48 [Zakim]
15:13:49 [pgroth]
15:14:19 [tlebo]
unknown: broken phone connection.
15:14:32 [paolo_]
15:14:54 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:14:57 [smiles]
15:15:04 [satya]
15:15:10 [tlebo]
paolo_: what is powder? Can we have reference?
15:15:36 [tfrancart]
tfrancart has joined #prov
15:15:44 [tlebo]
paolo_: make sure powder link is obvious in the writeup.
15:16:06 [tlebo]
pgroth: timetable?
15:16:45 [tlebo]
simon: today - finish scope asap. by 23rd June finish questions. by 30tg draft for F2F.
15:16:59 [tlebo]
action: simon to send timeline in mailing list.
15:16:59 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - simon
15:16:59 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
15:17:31 [olaf]
I will
15:17:43 [paolo_]
15:17:43 [GK_]
I intend to continue to help with proposals
15:17:46 [paolo_]
15:17:49 [tlebo]
proposed: people self-select to provide proposals.
15:17:53 [Yogesh]
15:17:56 [satya]
15:17:56 [Luc]
I will point to the web protocol defined by sparql group as a way to access provenance
15:18:00 [paolo_]
15:18:03 [paolo_]
15:18:04 [pgroth]
ack paolo_
15:18:07 [pgroth]
ack Yogesh
15:18:29 [tlebo]
[]: please separate proposals into different sections based on who proposed them.
15:18:33 [Yogesh]
15:18:48 [SamCoppens]
15:19:15 [olaf]
15:19:23 [pgroth]
ack olaf
15:19:49 [Luc]
graham, why do you need a reference to the powder profile here? isn't it that <link/> is part of html and not POWDER?
15:20:11 [tlebo]
olaf: proposals first phase, THEN issues raised against proposal. what do issues mean? issues of proposals themselves or that are found when considering them.
15:20:21 [GK_]
15:20:23 [tlebo]
simon: the former is intended.
15:20:24 [olaf]
15:20:52 [pgroth]
ack GK_
15:20:53 [GK_]
15:21:03 [tlebo]
simon: we should distinguish between out of scope for F2F but sill within scope of prov-wg.
15:22:32 [tlebo]
GK_: re POWDER. want to make distinction from access vs. determinign the URIs for access. not sure how to make that clear in current writeup sections.
15:22:36 [Zakim]
15:22:52 [edsu]
zakim, [LC] is edsu
15:22:52 [Zakim]
+edsu; got it
15:23:27 [tlebo]
provenance of document vs. its identity
15:23:54 [tlebo]
topic: connection Task Force plan at Face-to-face meeting
15:24:05 [pgroth]
15:25:04 [Luc]
yogesh and simon, could you add the timeline to the wiki page?
15:25:35 [tlebo]
ericstephan: for proposal, not timeline yet. Have initial proposed scope. Basing from incubator group; existing vocabularies. Domain-specific conventions need to be considered. 3) complementary concepts relating to provenance.
15:25:53 [tlebo]
ericstephan: e.g. visual analytics group interested in provenance.
15:26:25 [tlebo]
ericstephan: considering scope; what to exclude/include.
15:26:42 [GK_]
q+ to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:26:46 [Zakim]
15:26:49 [tlebo]
ericstephan: CHI has example template to use when gathering connections.
15:27:02 [tlebo]
15:27:14 [dgarijo]
i think he refers to Kai
15:27:15 [satya]
@Eric - please clarify "complementary concepts relating to provenance"
15:27:31 [Zakim]
15:27:31 [Luc]
15:27:40 [jorn]
zakim, ??p5 is me
15:27:40 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:28:13 [satya]
15:28:19 [tlebo]
ericstephan: w.r.t. data quality, uncertainty quantification. a lot of work in "knowledge provenance layer". -- what means by "complementary concepts"
15:28:23 [pgroth]
ack GK_
15:28:23 [Zakim]
GK_, you wanted to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:28:34 [tlebo]
GK_: examples for domain-specific conventions.
15:29:09 [Yogesh]
@Luc, F2F1 Access and Query Proposal plan has been posted to wiki
15:29:29 [tlebo]
ericstephan: currently trying to integrate disparate models with earth simulation, agriculture, power grid models. They want to capture and identify uncertainties from those results.
15:29:42 [Luc]
@Yogesh, thanks!
15:29:51 [Luc]
15:29:51 [tlebo]
ericstephan: this will need provenance to address the uncertainties.
15:30:07 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:30:20 [pgroth]
15:30:32 [tlebo]
luc: broken phone.
15:30:32 [Luc]
it looks like you can't here me, i'll type my comments
15:31:03 [tlebo]
pgroth: please add timeline soon for connection.
15:31:07 [Luc]
the scenario that Eric described looks more like an application, doesn't this belong to the last task force?
15:31:16 [ericstephan]
15:31:29 [tlebo]
proposed: people help with connection task force.
15:31:37 [simoninireland]
I'd be interested
15:31:44 [Luc]
For this task force, will we investigate opportunities for connecting with DC, Identity, Life Science, ....
15:31:45 [simoninireland]
Sorry, keyboard malfunction :-)
15:31:47 [ericstephan]
Several people volunteered yesterday in email
15:31:50 [Lena]
i am interested
15:32:02 [tlebo]
pgroth: this is about connecting to existing provenance standards and domains and their use cases
15:32:04 [ericstephan]
I believe Carl Reed?
15:32:13 [Christine]
IApologies. It is difficult for me to hear. But very happy to help progress this work.
15:32:15 [edsu]
i would be willing to try to help outreach w/ digital preservation community
15:32:20 [ericstephan]
Thank you
15:32:23 [GK_]
@luc @ericstephan I'm *guessing* that there's a reference here to provenence that's implicit in existing applications, and if there are conventions we can connect to. But that's just my guess.
15:32:26 [frew]
very interested in connections to climate/earth science but will be offline for next ~3 weeks so can't help w/ F2F1
15:32:35 [tlebo]
topic: implementation and test case Task Force
15:32:44 [Luc]
@ercistephan, will you also write the timetable on the wiki?
15:32:47 [zednik]
wiki page:
15:33:16 [tlebo]
lena: identified scope on wiki. listing series of deliverables.
15:33:30 [ericstephan]
@Luc yes I will meet with Kai on the timeline and get this out asap
15:33:44 [tlebo]
lena: engaging with stakeholders and connecting with other task forces. contacting those with provenance problems, so they can give overview and how it would be used.
15:33:59 [Luc]
15:34:28 [tlebo]
GK_: wiki page indicates stakeholder-oriented. lower level test cases to help clarify details? e.g. RDF working group had small test cases.
15:34:44 [satya]
@Lena/Stephan: would like to point to the use cases created by the Provenance XG, for example:
15:34:47 [dgarijo]
15:34:53 [tlebo]
lena: develop use cases from interviewing stakeholders.
15:36:02 [tlebo]
luc: to Helena, going to talk to stakeholders outside of working group or inside?
15:36:32 [tlebo]
lena: Ideally outside. e.g. Stephan's Australia and Helena's. Invite them to present to us.
15:36:58 [tlebo]
luc: remember those in working group. Would help to focus with them.
15:37:22 [tlebo]
luc: members of group interested in implementing standards.
15:37:43 [jun]
15:37:46 [tlebo]
lena: by F2F, clarifying use cases and detailing them.
15:37:47 [smiles]
15:37:55 [Luc]
15:37:59 [Zakim]
15:38:03 [dgarijo]
15:38:13 [Zakim]
15:38:16 [tlebo]
dgarijo: in incubator group, 50 use cases. some of those can be reused.
15:38:22 [jorn]
zakim, ??p2 is me
15:38:22 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:38:29 [pgroth]
15:38:31 [tlebo]
lena: started with those
15:38:35 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
15:38:46 [tlebo]
dgarijo: please add link to those from the wiki page
15:38:53 [pgroth]
ack jun
15:39:08 [tlebo]
action: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases
15:39:08 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - use
15:39:57 [satya]
+1 for Jun's point
15:40:07 [dgarijo]
yep, I agree too.
15:40:26 [tlebo]
jun: worried about implementation vs. use cases - out of scope? 2) what to do with requirements? expand model based on use cases?
15:41:02 [Luc]
15:41:03 [tlebo]
lena: idea is to help identify the requirements for the use cases and make sure it has a target audience.
15:41:16 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:41:21 [GK_]
q+ to say but we are not (as a WG) creating a s/w implementation
15:41:23 [tlebo]
jun: suggest to restate the wiki page to reflect this.
15:41:56 [tlebo]
smiles: objectives for F2F preparations?
15:42:03 [dgarijo]
@GK_ but we should at least provide some examples/guidelines if we want people to use the PIL
15:42:24 [tlebo]
lena: identification of stakeholders both at F2F and outside.
15:42:36 [GK_]
@dgariji yes, no prob there, but ware of scope
15:42:45 [GK_]
15:42:54 [tlebo]
zednik: still establishing scope for task force.
15:42:59 [pgroth]
15:43:03 [VinhNguyen]
VinhNguyen has joined #prov
15:43:07 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:43:42 [tlebo]
luc: concerned for amount of work. only 4 weeks to F2F.
15:43:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.708.aajj
15:43:57 [tlebo]
zednik: we are not doing work, but establishing scope of what TF will be doing.
15:44:54 [tlebo]
lena: scope of TF
15:45:03 [tlebo]
luc: we need 2 independent implementations that interoperate.
15:45:17 [tlebo]
luc: we need to define what it means to interoperate.
15:45:53 [tlebo]
luc: we need to find someone with a provenance problem willing to implement the standards.
15:46:37 [tlebo]
lena: TF will review the charter.
15:46:37 [SamCoppens]
I am volunteer for reference impl
15:46:40 [GK_]
15:47:51 [tlebo]
lena: identification of stakeholders is primary objective for F2F.
15:48:18 [tlebo]
luc: what kind of information to do want to obtain from stakeholders.
15:48:37 [Zakim]
15:48:58 [tlebo]
pgroth: table to mailing list.
15:49:10 [Luc]
15:49:35 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:49:48 [dgarijo]
I think it would be nice to try to model at least the news example with the current concepts.
15:50:38 [tlebo]
GK_: regarding wg's role in implementations and applications. That's not what's happening.
15:51:04 [tlebo]
zednik: TF to coordinate implementation, but who would be DOING it?
15:51:09 [paolo_]
@GK I think this is clear enough from the charter?
15:51:19 [tlebo]
pgroth: we find groups that are willing to adopt our standard - we don't do it ourselves.
15:51:40 [tlebo]
zednik: we should provide documentation that allows another group to implement the recommendation.
15:51:42 [dgarijo]
+1 to the portotypes.
15:51:51 [GK_]
@paolo, indeed. makes no reference to ref implementation.
15:52:01 [tlebo]
pgroth: more than one organization develops our recommendations.
15:52:10 [estephan]
it would seem like there is a relationship between the implementation and connection task force that we should explore at the f2f
15:52:11 [paolo_]
15:52:19 [GK_]
15:52:22 [pgroth]
ack GK_
15:52:25 [pgroth]
ack paolo_
15:52:37 [satya]
@GK - for the proposal of the WG to be a W3C recommendation, we need couple of example/prototype implementations
15:53:03 [tlebo]
paolo_: for modeling language vs. tooling. Implementation is not in scope, but tools need to support the new model.
15:53:17 [GK_]
@satya - sure we do, but the *implementation* itself isn't from the WG. Convincing toolmakers is.
15:53:31 [paolo_]
15:53:36 [Zakim]
15:53:43 [GK_]
The point is to prove that NON-WG-MEMBERS can implement it.
15:53:49 [tlebo]
accepted: scope of wg is not to create implementation, but to convince others to adopt it.
15:53:57 [Zakim]
15:54:01 [jorn]
zakim, ??p1 is me
15:54:01 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:54:10 [satya]
@GK - agree, I think Paolo put it precisely - example tools
15:54:17 [pgroth]
15:54:18 [pgroth]
there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition
15:54:18 [pgroth]
process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG
15:54:18 [pgroth]
terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate
15:54:29 [tlebo]
topic: concepts discussions - process execution and process specification.
15:54:46 [khalidbelhajjame]
How easy to convince people/organization that are non members of the WG to implement a model that they did not specify?
15:55:03 [tlebo]
pgroth: process specification equates to "recipe" in prov-xg. we are not creating a specification language.
15:55:05 [satya]
15:55:18 [tlebo]
proposed: creating process specification language is out of scope.
15:55:21 [dgarijo]
@khalid: true
15:55:44 [satya]
15:55:57 [satya]
15:55:57 [smiles]
15:55:58 [JImM]
15:55:58 [jcheney]
15:55:58 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:55:59 [dgarijo]
15:55:59 [Yogesh]
15:56:00 [GK_]
+1 agree with distinction
15:56:00 [jun]
15:56:00 [Edoardo]
15:56:00 [olaf]
15:56:01 [estephan]
15:56:01 [frew]
15:56:01 [dcorsar]
15:56:03 [paolo_]
15:56:06 [zednik]
15:56:07 [tlebo]
satya: we need to distinguish, but we are not defining what is actually used.
15:56:08 [tlebo]
15:56:09 [GK_]
-1 link to specific language
15:56:11 [tlebo]
(group can link to them, but are not defining them)
15:56:12 [jcheney]
and we could point to other such languages (XProc, BPEL, ...)
15:56:15 [tfrancart]
15:56:24 [SamCoppens]
15:56:29 [tlebo]
action: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page
15:56:29 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - add
15:56:31 [satya]
@James - agree
15:56:41 [VinhNguyen]
15:57:02 [tlebo]
GK_: recognizing that there may be languages and they can be implemented
15:57:17 [JImM]
the only model question I have is whether we need process which has executions and a recipe or just the link between process execution and process recipe (w/o an independent thing called process)
15:57:18 [jcheney]
"including, but not limited to language 1, language 2, language 3, ..."
15:57:21 [Lena]
15:57:37 [tlebo]
accepted: we are not defining process specification.
15:57:45 [tlebo]
topic: process execution
15:57:48 [pgroth]
A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
15:57:55 [tlebo]
pgroth: process execution has time interval.
15:57:58 [satya]
15:57:59 [GK_]
q+ to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:58:04 [dgarijo]
15:58:17 [satya]
15:58:18 [Christine]
Apologies all. I will need to leave the call.
15:58:21 [Luc]
15:58:25 [Zakim]
15:58:25 [tlebo]
GK_: does anything break if we don't require start of execution to be in past?
15:59:05 [tlebo]
satya: it is important that process has started in past. provenance metadata is w.r.t history. it is a defining criteria for provenance.
15:59:08 [smiles]
15:59:13 [satya]
15:59:14 [pgroth]
ack GK_
15:59:15 [Zakim]
GK_, you wanted to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:59:16 [GK_]
15:59:20 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:59:28 [paolo_]
@GK provenance is based on observations... so yes, the process exec should have started before we can observe what it does
15:59:39 [tlebo]
luc: +1 satya, we are not defining what will happen in future or predicting. not about specifying things in future. describing what has happened in the past.
15:59:41 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:59:45 [JImM]
anticipated provenance is workflow :-)
16:00:08 [GK_]
(I'm trying to think of examples ... best I can do is fiction)
16:00:20 [GK_]
What Simon said
16:00:35 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:00:44 [pgroth]
proposed: process execution has a duration and A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past.
16:00:45 [paolo_]
16:00:45 [JImM]
has a duration or can have a duration?
16:00:57 [paolo_]
16:01:00 [Luc]
16:01:05 [tlebo]
proposed: process execution has a duration and is in the past.
16:01:17 [Zakim]
16:01:42 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:01:47 [pgroth]
ack paolo_
16:01:47 [JImM]
in OPM, time was 'optional'...
16:01:58 [zednik]
16:02:00 [satya]
@khalid - the definition of process incorporates time dimension
16:02:08 [smiles]
16:02:08 [tlebo]
paolo_: starting time is enough to talk about provenance. no more is needed. duration may be ongoing. not necessary to get into it.
16:02:09 [paolo_]
16:02:30 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:03:39 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:03:45 [paolo_]
16:03:51 [tlebo]
luc: disagrees with paolo. should merge proposals. Modeling language to help us describe what is happening in the past. We _could_ describe everything as being instantaneous. They don't have to have a duration, but there is a start time and end time.
16:04:00 [pgroth]
ack zednik
16:04:13 [tlebo]
zednik: agrees, but is time a required property or optional?
16:04:32 [tlebo]
pgroth: it has a duration, not that you have to specify it. (open world?)
16:04:41 [satya]
@Stephan - without time dimension, process cannot be distinguished from notion of resource
16:04:43 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:05:04 [Luc]
how long did it last?
16:05:18 [Zakim]
16:05:23 [pgroth]
ack paolo_
16:05:28 [zednik]
@Satya - not sure what you mean, perhaps follow-up in email
16:05:51 [JImM]
OPM considered time stamps as a way to verify/challenge the processing claims (evidence that you should trust the provenance)
16:06:06 [pgroth]
proposed: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
16:06:10 [tlebo]
paolo_: useful to have start time so can reason about events. end time is less important.
16:06:13 [dgarijo]
16:06:14 [satya]
16:06:14 [JImM]
16:06:16 [frew]
16:06:17 [paolo_]
16:06:17 [StephenCresswell]
16:06:17 [zednik]
16:06:18 [paolo_]
16:06:20 [jcheney]
16:06:21 [olaf]
+1 to duration
16:06:21 [SamCoppens]
16:06:24 [dcorsar]
16:06:25 [estephan]
16:06:25 [Edoardo]
16:06:29 [jun]
16:06:33 [Yogesh]
16:06:34 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:06:37 [jorn]
+1 even though duration can be incredibly short
16:06:37 [Lena]
-1 to making duration a requirement
16:06:39 [tlebo]
16:06:58 [paolo_]
it's not that end time is less important, rather that process executions may not have a known end time
16:06:59 [zednik]
-1 to make duration a requirement
16:07:27 [estephan]
agreed with Stephan
16:07:28 [tlebo]
(open world can help us here, no?)
16:07:41 [zednik]
@tlebo - agreed
16:07:43 [JImM]
process executions are not constrained to be instantaneous...
16:07:45 [paolo_]
"process executions have a temporal characterisation" sounds trivially true...
16:07:59 [satya]
16:08:20 [tlebo]
pgroth: we need to finish this up on mailing list.
16:08:49 [tlebo]
satya: philosophy. execution occurs over time - essential. can be instantaneous or over time (depending on granularity).
16:08:57 [tlebo]
satya: does not need to be explicitly noted, but is essential aspect.
16:08:58 [satya]
16:09:24 [Zakim]
16:09:24 [tlebo]
issue: group to finish up process execution.
16:09:24 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-21 - Group to finish up process execution. ; please complete additional details at .
16:09:31 [estephan]
16:09:31 [Zakim]
- +1.216.368.aagg
16:09:32 [Zakim]
16:09:33 [Zakim]
16:09:34 [Zakim]
16:09:34 [Zakim]
16:09:34 [tlebo]
16:09:35 [Zakim]
16:09:36 [Zakim]
16:09:36 [Zakim]
- +1.509.554.aabb
16:09:37 [paolo_]
paolo_ has left #prov
16:09:38 [Zakim]
16:09:40 [Zakim]
16:09:42 [Zakim]
- +1.937.708.aajj
16:09:43 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has left #prov
16:09:44 [Zakim]
16:09:46 [Zakim]
16:09:48 [Zakim]
- +1.518.276.aahh
16:09:50 [Zakim]
16:09:52 [Zakim]
16:09:52 [tlebo]
rrsagent, set log public
16:09:54 [Zakim]
- +1.518.633.aaee
16:09:56 [Zakim]
- +1.832.386.aadd
16:09:58 [Zakim]
16:09:58 [tlebo]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlebo
16:10:00 [Zakim]
16:10:02 [Zakim]
16:10:04 [Zakim]
16:10:12 [pgroth]
Regrets: Yolanda Gil
16:10:53 [tlebo]
trackbot, end telcon
16:10:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:10:53 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Luc, pgroth, jorn, [IPcaller], +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, GK_, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd,
16:10:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:10:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:10:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: simon to send timeline in mailing list. [1]
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases [2]
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page [3]
16:10:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:10:57 [Zakim]
... jcheney, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.216.368.aagg, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aahh, +1.540.449.aaii, paolo_, Yogesh, khalidbelhajjame, edsu, +1.937.708.aajj
16:11:09 [Zakim]
16:11:10 [Zakim]
16:11:10 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended