<trackbot> Date: 28 July 2011

<pgroth> can anyone on the call scribe today?

<pgroth> Regrests: Helena Deus, Reza B'Far

<pgroth> can anyone scribe today?

<pgroth> can someone scribe today?

<pgroth> Scribe: smiles

pgroth: describes agenda

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-21

<pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 21 Jul telecon and F2F1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<tlebo> +1

<Curt> +1

0 (was not present)

<zednik> +1

<StephenCresswell> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<dcorsar> =+1

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

Action items

pgroth: Actions have been cleaned up, as sometimes completed, sometimes superceded
... One action left on Stephan regarding 2nd iteration of use case questionnaire

deadline for issues submission

pgroth: would be good to have a deadline for issue submission, suggest next week's telecon

<khalidbelhajjame> ?q

<khalidbelhajjame> +q

khalid: with respect to all drafts or just model and paq?

pgroth: should be all documents

<khalidbelhajjame> -q

pgroth: if we feel like opening up for a document, we can do so, e.g. ontology

smiles: what do we do if we think of more issues after deadline

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I don't think its reasonable to close documents to issue submission, if that's being proposed

pgroth: should leave until after first draft, so we have a set we will resolve for that draft

GK: not reasonable to close the issue list, but end which issues will be in first draft

pgroth: issues can be raised, but no more open issues for first draft after next week
... editor can say issue is closed pending review
... Please sign up to scribe! especially for next week

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

Name suggestions for standard (model/language)

Call for name suggestions

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: please go to site above to look at suggestions
... add suggestions, next week we will have a straw poll on what the group likes

W3C Privacy Interest Group

Christine: W3C is proposing two new privacy-related groupPrivacy Interest Group

<Christine> http://www.w3.org/2011/07/privacy-ig-charter

Christine: Privacy Interest Group and Tracking Protection Group

<Christine> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter-draft

Christine: the privacy community may be one we are interested in talking to
... might ask them to add our group to their charter, perhaps with regard to the agreed use of private data

pgroth: always useful to have connections to other WGs, just restricted by bandwidth of people in the group
... anyone in privacy groups involved in our WG?

Christine: privacy groups not formed yet, but am considering asking to join

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the importance of connecting may have more to do with social/policy implications, less well defined than technical issues just implied

GK: is benefit at technical level, or maybe better at policy level, reinforcing user trust in systems?

(benefit of interaction of groups)

Christine: TP group will be very technical, but what is interesting about PIG for W3C is people with interest in both user and technical areas

pgroth: if group gets formed, useful to know what we can do to advertise provenance WG work as it can help them

<GK> (What's to object to?)

Update on provenance access document

GK: document now in version control repository
... some issues raised, GK responding
... several editorial issues dealt with, but other issues require more discussion, including interaction of access mechanism and model

<khalidbelhajjame> +q

<tlebo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/bc0bbf26efab/paq/provenance-access.html, right?

khalid: is version on main page of WG Wiki the one circulated this morning?

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts

GK: yes, should be the latest one

<tlebo> refers to the "always latest" http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html

<khalidbelhajjame> -q

Provenance ontology

<pgroth> Satya?

<satya> a couple of mins - just joing again

pgroth: first draft of ontology, available on version control, plus brief document describing class hierarchy

Luc: some differences between ontology file and specification document, e.g. most concepts subclass of Bob in one document but not the other
... also, some differences with conceptual model, not sure how group should address these

<khalidbelhajjame> Probably we can wait a bit until the model is stable, and most issues are resolved, before trying to check the consistency between the model and the OWL ontology

satya: HTML is most consistent version, OWL is under development taking into account capabilities of OWL
... by definitions in conceptual model, process execution and agent are subclasses of BOB, so in HTML document, but am to raise this issue with conceptual model

<dgarijo> +q

satya: please fire issues regarding discrepancies of HTML specification of formal model and conceptual model

<dgarijo> @Satya: I would like to help you in this task

<tlebo> +q

satya: met RPI people, to get help with editing document, ontology, visualising schema

<khalidbelhajjame> yes, I would like to help. I am not expert in OWL, but am ready to give it a go

Luc: Paul and I will find co-editor for this document, probably from RPI (ACTION)

dgarijo: sent issues by email about document, will raise
... volunteers to help on formal semantics

<Luc> Regrests: Helena Deus, Reza B'Far, Paolo Missier

<khalidbelhajjame> Thanks Satya

satya: will contact those interested in helping on formal semantics

tlebo: will help out in defining ontology, Deborah sent some guidance by email

<pgroth> ack sees I've

ack I've

conceptual model

Luc: document released by Paolo and I, many issues raised, lots of discussion
... some issues dealt with, hope to be able to close soon
... over next week deal with others, then Paolo and I away for two weeks

pgroth: possible to get some core issues done, so satya can proceed?

Luc: by the time Paolo and I go away, hope to have reasonable set of concepts defined, possibly up to Role in the document
... have these sections in a decent state

<GK> I regret I haven't had time to review the provenance model doc properly yet, but when I do I'd like to draft a proposal to eliminate the Entity/BOB distinction.

Luc: not sure whether people have more issues to raise
... need to decide on Entity/BOB soon

pgroth: get issues in my early next week, to ensure get somewhere before Luc, Paolo away

<pgroth> issues up to 5.11

BOB

<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#bob

Luc: In Section 5.1, we have BOB concept, which is a construct of the language
... no term called 'entity'
... in text of document use term entity with natural language meaning, not defined as part of model
... Need to decide 1. Have we got only one concept in the model?

<GK> AH, OK, "BOB" is the new "Entity"

Luc: 2. What should we call it?

<rgolden> +1

Luc: question 1 may be translated to only one class in ontology

<GK> +1 for only one [formal class] construct in the language

<JimM> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> simon: agree that there is only one concept in the model

+1

<satya> +1 agree with one concept and proposal for calling it entity

<tlebo> +1 for Entity not a class in the model, Concept is a class.

<zednik> +1 agree with one concept and call it entity

Luc: Jim McCusker has argued for two distinct concepts

<satya> Jim McCusker is in a conference - may not be on the call

khalid: I believe the idea Jim was to allow us to be able to express that two BOBs characterise same entity
... I was supporting same but not include entity as a concept in the model

<Luc> @GK, the draft makes this clear

JimM: I think Jim McCusker is trying to distinguish between a thing and the document describing it
... e.g. a URI for him, one for document describing him

<GK> @Luc, I'm sure it does, but lacking time to do a proper review I haven't been aware of the change

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest a clear statement of this change is announced to the list so WG members can comment

Luc: never had both BOB and entity, so having one will not be a change

<tlebo> Entity vs. BOB - We can't write Entities down, we can only write down BOBs that can only scratch at describing the real physical or conceptual Entity

<rgolden> the whiteboard was the source of my confusion

GK: recollects whiteboard with two columns

<StephenCresswell> +1 for bobs only in model, if there's a way to identify the "top bob"

<rgolden> but now realize that the left column on the whiteboard was not a first-class concept

Luc: right column was constructs in the language, left was term used informally

GK: when you say "represent" do you mean "denote"?

<khalidbelhajjame> Stuff became Entity and Thing became Bob

Luc: please go back to document to see exact wording

satya: when considering provenance, we should not distinguish between what is in real world and our representation in an information system

<tlebo> the whiteboard from F2F1 distinguishing Entities from BOBs http://twitpic.com/5x7oen/full

satya: we should only be concerned with our constructs, so only one concept

<pgroth> proposed: this is the Existence of a single concept pil:BOB (name TBD) as opposed to two concepts (pil:Entity/pil:BOB)

<satya> +1

+1

<StephenCresswell> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<GK> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<jcheney> 0

<JimM> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<rgolden> Phrased a bit oddly, but +1

<dcorsar> +1

<Curt> +1

<rgolden> sure

<ilkayaltintas> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<rgolden> proposed: That there exists only a single concept pil:BOB (name TBD) as opposed to two concepts (pil:Entity/pil:BOB)

<zednik> +1

<tlebo> +1 (as long as "entity" is part of the description of pil:BOB

<satya> +1

+1

<rgolden> +1

<Curt> +1

<GK> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<StephenCresswell> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1 (for both proposals :-)

<SamCoppens> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<dcorsar> +1

Accepted: That there exists only a single concept pil:BOB (name TBD) as opposed to two concepts (pil:Entity/pil:BOB)

<dgarijo> @tlebo: yes, it is used: "A BOB represents an identifiable characterized entity"

pgroth: What should we call BOB?

<pgroth> Entity,

<pgroth> Snapshot

<pgroth> View

<pgroth> Perspective

<pgroth> InstantiatedEntity/EntityInstance

<khalidbelhajjame> EntitySnapshot

<rgolden> Identifiable

<StephenCresswell> Bounded OBservation (or BOB for short)

<JimM> resource :-)

Thing

<dgarijo> EntityDescription?

<StephenCresswell> Appearance

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask now we've talked around this, does anything distinguish this from rdf:Resource or owl:Thing?

GK: is there anything to distinguish the concept from an RDF resource or OWL Thing?

Luc: yes and no
... BOB's should be identifiable as with resource/Thing, but also list attributes and their values

<tlebo> BOBs are a very small subset of rdfs:Resource/owl:Thing; BOBs are only the things we've written down to describe entities.

Luc: Thing can be extended to have attributes, values

<JimM> teh difference is by degree - we might want to look in more detail/shorter lived things, but I don't see a difference in kind

GK: resources and Things have attributes, just not required attributes

<Zakim> satya, you wanted to GK for clarifying his que

satya: RDF resource and OWL Thing are different from each other

<GK> My proposal is owl:Thing or rdf:Resource (areen't they the same in OWL full?)

tlebo: BOB's are only things we are writing down to describe entities in the real world

<GK> I thoughts BOBs could be anything too

Luc: agree that BOB is subclass of RDF resource or OWL Thing
... but can postpone this debate (use sameAs)

<pgroth> Entity,

<pgroth> Snapshot

<pgroth> View

<pgroth> Perspective

<pgroth> InstantiatedEntity/EntityInstance

<pgroth> EntitySnapshot

<pgroth> Bounded OBservation (or BOB for short)

<pgroth> resource

<pgroth> Thing

<pgroth> EntityDescription

<pgroth> Appearance

<tlebo> "writing down" in a very general sense. BOBs must exist in space time.

<rgolden> Identifiable

<satya> +1 for Entity

<pgroth> Entity

<GK> +1

<satya> +1

<JimM> +1

+1

<jcheney> +1

<rgolden> +1

<Curt> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<zednik> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> 0 for Entity

<pgroth> Snapshot

<ilkayaltintas> +1

<jcheney> (+1 for simoninireland who is here)

<GK> -1

<satya> -1

<JimM> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<Luc> @rgolden, process executions are also identifiable but are not BOBs

-1

<SamCoppens> +1

<dgarijo> 0

<jcheney> -1

<pgroth> View

<satya> -1

<GK> -1

-1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Yogesh> -1

<Curt> -1

<JimM> -1

<zednik> -1

<StephenCresswell> +1

<dgarijo> -1

<tlebo> +1

<jcheney> -1

<pgroth> Perspective

<satya> -1

<GK> -1

-1

<Curt> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<JimM> -1

<jcheney> -1

<Yogesh> 0

<rgolden> -1

<ilkayaltintas> 0

<dgarijo> 0

<SamCoppens> 0

<dcorsar> -1

<Edoardo> -1

<pgroth> InstantiatedEntity/EntityInstance

<satya> -1

<zednik> -1

<GK> -1

<JimM> 0

<rgolden> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

0

<jcheney> -1

<Edoardo> -1

<dgarijo> 0

<dcorsar> -1

<Curt> 0

<Yogesh> 0

<pgroth> EntitySnapshot

<satya> -1

<GK> -1

-1

<JimM> -1

<Curt> -1

<Yogesh> +1

<ilkayaltintas> -1

<rgolden> -1

<jcheney> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Edoardo> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<dcorsar> -1

<pgroth> Bounded OBservation (or BOB for short)

<satya> -1

<GK> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

<rgolden> :) -1

-1

<Yogesh> -1

<Curt> -1

<ilkayaltintas> -1 :)

<dgarijo> -1

<jcheney> -1

<Edoardo> -1

<zednik> :) -1

<dcorsar> -1

<JimM> :-), but -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<pgroth> resource

<satya> -1

<GK> +1

0

<Curt> +1

<Yogesh> -1

<tlebo> -1

<Edoardo> 0

<dgarijo> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

<JimM> +1

<rgolden> 0

<ilkayaltintas> 0

<MacTed> -1

<jcheney> 0

<dcorsar> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<pgroth> Thing

<satya> -1

<GK> +1

+1

<Yogesh> -1

<ilkayaltintas> -1

<tlebo> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<JimM> +1

<Edoardo> 0

<Curt> +1

<dgarijo> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

<rgolden> 0

<dcorsar> -1

<jcheney> +1

<pgroth> EntityDescription

<satya> -1

<JimM> -1

<Curt> -1

-1

<jcheney> -1

<rgolden> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<Yogesh> -1

<GK> -1

<Edoardo> -1

<dgarijo> -1

<dcorsar> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> 0

<pgroth> Appearance

<Yogesh> -1

<GK> -1

<JimM> -1

<Curt> -1

<satya> -1

<rgolden> -1

0

<Edoardo> -1

<dgarijo> -1

<jcheney> -1

<SamCoppens> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

<ilkayaltintas> -1

<dcorsar> -1

<zednik> -1

<pgroth> Identifiable

<Yogesh> 0

<rgolden> +1

<satya> -1

<dgarijo> 0

<SamCoppens> -1

<khalidbelhajjame> -1

<Edoardo> 0

<Curt> 0

0

<tlebo> 0

<dcorsar> 0

<jcheney> 0

<JimM> 0

<GK> 0/+1...?

pgroth: just a straw poll, but gives good indication

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

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)

Found Scribe: smiles
Inferring ScribeNick: smiles

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Accepted Christine Curt Edoardo GK GK1 JimM Kingsley_Idehen Luc MacTed OpenLink_Software P10 P12 P13 P17 P28 P33 P41 P44 P54 P63 P68 Regrests SamCoppens StephenCresswell Yogesh aaaa aabb aacc aadd aaee aaff aahh aaii aajj aakk dcorsar dgarijo edsu ilkayaltintas jcheney joined jorn khalid khalidbelhajjame pgroth proposed prov rgolden sandro satya simon smiles tlebo trackbot wcandillon zednik
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Helena, Deus)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Helena_Deus, Reza_B'Far, Paolo_Missier

Regrets: Helena_Deus Reza_B'Far Paolo_Missier
Found Date: 28 Jul 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/07/28-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: