<trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011

<pgroth> +1.312.348.aaaa is me

<pgroth> Scribe: Satya Sahoo

<stain> Zakim: +??P4 is me

<stain> I can't find http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-16-06 as linked to in the agenda

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.23

<pgroth> stain, you're right

<pgroth> Sandro, can you check

<pgroth> here are the minutes from last week http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-16

<jorn> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-16

<GK> Previous minutes link in agenda at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.23 seems to be broken...

<stain> GK: it was just magically fixed

<stain> where's our Luc!

<stain> oh wait, it's pgroth chairing today

<Paolo> very noisy. can't hear a thing

<Paolo> can the people who are typing please mute themselves

<GK> @stain Yeah... by the time I got there with a fix it was fixed

<stain> Zakim: whois noisy?

<dgarijo> satya, are you in the call yet?

<stain> Zakim: who is noisy?

<dgarijo> :)

<pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 16 Jun telecon

<dgarijo> there is a lot of noise ...

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-16

<dgarijo> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<zednik> +1

<smiles> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<Paolo> (I was not there)

<StephenCresswell> +1

<tfrancart> +1

<JimM> +1

<stain> +1

<jorn> +1

Paul: Minutes of Jun 16 meeting approved

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

Paul: Scribes needed for next week's telcon, please volunteer
... Update on the connection task force for the first F2F

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Connection_Proposal

<pgroth> catalog: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connections_Template_Catalog

Kai: Feedback invited for the catalogs created by the connection task force

<pgroth> Kai = Eric

<pgroth> Erik

<stain> Zakim: +??P31 is me

<pgroth> Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1

Paul: Update on the implementation and test task force

<Lena> https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dEp1OVg2REdmLWpSbTlRYks1OFZURVE6MQ#gid=0

Lena: Created forms to elicit feedback from provenance users and stakeholders
... Forms will be used to understand needs of provenance users

<jcheney> +q

<jcheney> http://www.usenix.org/events/tapp11/tech/final_files/Donaldson.pdf

James: Attended a workshop describing users requirements for provenance use in computing trust

<Paolo> the paper James just referred to: http://www.ics.forth.gr/~gregkar/tapp/papers/Day%202%20-%20Session%205%20-%20Do%20people%20want%20provenance%20and%20are%20they%20prepared%20to%20pay%20for%20it/Provenance,%20End-User%20Trust%20and%20Reuse%20An%20Empirical%20Investigation%20-%20Donaldson%20et.al.pdf

Paul: Update on the Access and Query task force

<Paolo> (I think!)

Simon: Several proposals and still no agreement on any one of them

<dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal

Simon: Curate the draft for the F2F and create a concrete set of points for further discussion

<GK> (My comment: not *necessarily* a separate service. SImple case is just use URI for provemamce)

Yogesh: Scope for provenance access service needs to be defined

Simon: Close to consensus on the technical points in the draft, but there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved

<dgarijo> +q

<stain> find a set of agreed principles

<pgroth> ACTION Simon to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Simon

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)

Simon: Additional points can be added to the access and query task force draft for discussion in the F2F

<pgroth> ACTION smiles to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus

<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Create a proposal for a set of points of consensus [on Simon Miles - due 2011-06-30].

Daniel: Will the issues related to provenance from multiple sources (?) be discussed in the F2F?

<dgarijo> -q

<stain> I guess those are the kind of thing we'll have to extract as general principles

<dgarijo> @satya I meant multiple sources describing the provenance of a resource.

<Paolo> @satya who is reporting on the Model TF?

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on

GK: Contentious points can be deferred

@Daniel: thanks for clarifying

Simon: Prioritize issues that can be discussed and resolved in the F2F

Paul: Update on Model task force

<dgarijo> @Paul=Paolo

Paolo: Three step plan, (a) cleaning up the provenance concept definitions

<dgarijo> ips

Paolo: Conference call tomorrow to discuss the F2F draft
... (b) Create draft by end of June
... (c) Put the draft for discussion during F2F

Paul: Definitions derived from CS will make it more complex

<JimM> +q

Paolo: We can use existing modeling work to define the provenance terms
... There are inconsistencies in the provenance concept terms

Jim: The definitions are consistent but specific parameters associated with terms are not very clear (?)

<JimM> -q

Paolo: Will try to reconcile the different descriptions

Paul: Agreed to derive common sense definitions
... Agreed on the definition of "thing"

Paolo: Tomorrow's Model task force telcon can help in reconciling the different definitions

Simon: The primer of the WG will help users to understand the provenance concept definitions

<stain> @paolo +10

Paul: We need to move forward after a consensus is reached

<stain> .. almost like a court case

Paolo: Model task force participants will be present at F2F

<Paolo> @satya: agree

Paul: Discussion on temporal properties

<pgroth> Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times

<stain> +1

<jcheney> +1

<tfrancart> +1

<GK> 0

Paul: Should we discuss about temporal properties now?

<dgarijo> +1

<Paolo> -1 : none seems controversial to me

0

<Lena> 0

<JimM> 0

<iker> +1

<zednik> 0

<Yogesh> 0

<dcorsar> 0

<smiles> 0

<kai> 0

<tlebo> 0

<pgroth> Proposed: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times

<stain> -1

Paul: Agreement over the proposed definition?

Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing

<GK> Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct?

Stain: Agrees with stephan zednik

Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic

<pgroth> acd Paolo

<Paolo> @Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-))

Simon: Agrees with past three speakers, seems to be unnecessary
... Discussing about this

<tlebo> q

<stain> @Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :)

Paulo: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded

<dgarijo> @stain: that's a nice point.

<GK> @stian, @dgarijo +1

Paulo: We need to understand the context of the notion of time

<JimM> +q

<GK> Ah, yes, pseudo-time?

<stain> @JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks?

Jim: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account

<smiles> yes

<stain> yes

<Paolo> @Paul: yes

<zednik> yes

<tlebo> no

Paul: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time

<Lena> yes

<GK> I think we *can* have provenance without time

<JimM> @stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks

<JimM> -q

GK: We can have provenance time

<dgarijo> I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary.

<JimM> yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance

<GK> @dgarijo, agreed.

Stian: Likes to have notion of profile

<smiles> @stain completely agree

<stain> Stian: Also that you can have provenance without Time (Taverna workflow system has that in current OPM export - but the provenance still makes sense)

<Paolo> better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine

<stain> and such a common order might not even exist

<JimM> would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies?

<GK> Sometimes, you just don't know. If time info is available that that can help.

Tim: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time

<stain> @GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications

<Paolo> indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks

<stain> so you need provenance of the timestamps!

<Paolo> @Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this

@Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it is not a universal requirement

<stain> say account1 is a probe orbiting the sun and reporting solar spots. Account2 is the same, but from a telescope at earth. If they also look at some astronomical event, they might not even going to agree on temporal ordering.

<GK> For me, this important/interesting thing about this discussion is how to reconcile conflicting provenance accounts; provenance for provenance may help, and may include time and other factors (e.g. trust)

Paul: Is there a need for temporal ordering

GK: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information

<Paolo> if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble

<stain> GK: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required

<stain> if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel

<JimM> timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions

<stain> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<smiles> +1

<zednik> +1 : time stamps addressed, but not required

Paul: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it

<jcheney> +1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics

<JimM> +q

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found

<Lena> is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not?

<GK> +1, (subject to consensus qualification)

<Lena> or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance?

Jim: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions

<GK> (Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that)

Jim: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description

<jorn> bye

<JimM> time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: satya
Found Scribe: Satya Sahoo

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa, pgroth, +1.213.290.aabb, Yogesh, stain, GK, +1.832.386.aadd, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.509.375.aaff, JimM, dgarijo, Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii
Present: jorn +1.312.348.aaaa pgroth +1.213.290.aabb Yogesh stain GK +1.832.386.aadd +1.518.633.aaee +1.509.375.aaff JimM dgarijo Paolo +1.509.375.aagg [IPcaller] +1.216.368.aahh Yolanda jcheney kai +1.315.330.aaii
Regrets: Luc Moreau
Found Date: 23 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report