IRC log of prov on 2011-09-01
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:57:13 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #prov
- 14:57:13 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-prov-irc
- 14:57:15 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 14:57:15 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #prov
- 14:57:17 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 14:57:17 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 14:57:17 [Edoardo]
- Edoardo has joined #prov
- 14:57:18 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
- 14:57:18 [trackbot]
- Date: 01 September 2011
- 14:57:18 [Luc]
- Zakim, this will be PROV
- 14:57:18 [Zakim]
- ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
- 14:57:19 [Curt]
- Curt has joined #prov
- 14:57:34 [Luc]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.01
- 14:57:44 [Luc]
- Chair: Luc Moreau
- 14:57:49 [Luc]
- Scribe: stain
- 14:57:55 [Luc]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 14:58:04 [Zakim]
- SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
- 14:58:11 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 14:58:18 [Zakim]
- + +1.443.987.aaaa
- 14:58:28 [Zakim]
- +??P32
- 14:58:48 [Zakim]
- + +44.238.059.aabb
- 14:58:58 [Luc]
- zakim, aabb is me
- 14:58:59 [Zakim]
- +Luc; got it
- 14:59:09 [Zakim]
- + +1.216.368.aacc
- 14:59:12 [GK1]
- GK1 has joined #prov
- 14:59:15 [Luc]
- @stain, are you scribing?
- 14:59:46 [satya]
- zakim, +1.216.368.aacc is me
- 14:59:56 [Zakim]
- +satya; got it
- 15:00:06 [Luc]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:00:23 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P12, +1.443.987.aaaa, ??P32, Luc, satya
- 15:00:29 [Zakim]
- + +1.315.330.aadd
- 15:00:35 [Zakim]
- +??P57
- 15:00:35 [smiles]
- smiles has joined #prov
- 15:00:35 [Luc]
- we don't seem to have a scribe
- 15:00:36 [Curt]
- zakim, +1.443.987.aaaa is me
- 15:00:41 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see GK1, Curt, Edoardo, Zakim, RRSAgent, GK, Paolo, satya, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot
- 15:00:45 [Zakim]
- +??P75
- 15:00:54 [dcorsar]
- dcorsar has joined #prov
- 15:00:57 [GK]
- zakim, ??P57 is me
- 15:01:01 [Zakim]
- +Curt; got it
- 15:01:11 [Zakim]
- +??P78
- 15:01:15 [Zakim]
- +??P77
- 15:01:27 [zednik]
- zednik has joined #prov
- 15:01:31 [Luc]
- Scribe: GK
- 15:01:33 [Zakim]
- -??P78
- 15:01:35 [Zakim]
- +GK; got it
- 15:01:44 [stain]
- Luc: sorry I was late
- 15:02:12 [Luc]
- stain: do you still want to scribe, we are starting ...
- 15:02:12 [stain]
- skype was not playing along
- 15:02:59 [stain]
- Luc: Requirements for main draft
- 15:03:05 [StephenCresswell]
- StephenCresswell has joined #prov
- 15:03:07 [stain]
- Luc: Talk about provenance ontology
- 15:03:17 [stain]
- Luc: suggests to drop document from agenda
- 15:03:29 [GK]
- Agenda: accept minutes of Aug 25 telecon
- 15:03:31 [Luc]
- PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Aug 25 telecon
- 15:03:36 [Luc]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-08-25
- 15:03:37 [satya]
- +1
- 15:03:42 [Curt]
- +1
- 15:03:43 [Paolo]
- (wasn't there)
- 15:03:44 [dcorsar]
- +1
- 15:03:47 [GK]
- 0 (not present)
- 15:03:52 [Zakim]
- + +44.789.470.aaee
- 15:03:52 [stain]
- 0 (not present)
- 15:03:53 [Edoardo]
- +1
- 15:03:55 [smiles]
- +1
- 15:03:56 [Zakim]
- + +1.518.633.aaff
- 15:04:03 [StephenCresswell]
- +1
- 15:04:12 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 15:04:15 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED: the minutes of Aug 25 telecon
- 15:04:18 [GK]
- Minutes accepted
- 15:04:29 [stain]
- Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me
- 15:04:30 [Lena]
- Lena has joined #prov
- 15:04:30 [GK]
- AGenda: review actions
- 15:04:34 [Luc]
- TOPIC: Named graphs requirements
- 15:04:35 [GK]
- No outstanding actions
- 15:04:42 [GK]
- Agenda: Named graph requirements
- 15:04:59 [stain]
- Luc: The RDF working group would like to have a telcon to hear our requirements
- 15:05:00 [GK]
- Luc: RDF WG would like teleconference to understand requirements.
- 15:05:04 [Luc]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph
- 15:05:06 [stain]
- Luc: A wiki pake made by Satya
- 15:05:12 [Zakim]
- +stain; got it
- 15:05:17 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:05:19 [GK]
- @Stian - are you taking over
- 15:05:20 [satya]
- @Luc: Is there a tentative date for the telcon?
- 15:05:26 [stain]
- @GK sure - if you mute your keyboard :)
- 15:05:44 [Zakim]
- + +1.860.995.aagg
- 15:05:45 [GK]
- Done.
- 15:05:48 [Zakim]
- +??P21
- 15:05:59 [GK]
- Scribe: Stian
- 15:06:06 [stain]
- Luc: 2011-09-15 The 15th of September as tentative date - after the normal telcon - extra 45 mins
- 15:06:11 [stain]
- Luc: But not yet decided
- 15:06:26 [satya]
- me and Paul
- 15:06:29 [stain]
- Luc: Who submitted the requirements of the wiki? Could authors indicate?
- 15:06:31 [dgarijo]
- dgarijo has joined #prov
- 15:06:40 [satya]
- q+
- 15:06:49 [Zakim]
- +??P27
- 15:06:54 [GK]
- q+
- 15:06:56 [stain]
- Luc: Any other requirements? Simon?
- 15:06:59 [sandro]
- zakim, ??P27 is Sandro
- 15:06:59 [Zakim]
- +Sandro; got it
- 15:06:59 [stain]
- Simon: All there
- 15:07:11 [stain]
- Satya: Wanted to add more points before telcon
- 15:07:16 [satya]
- q-
- 15:07:17 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:07:20 [stain]
- Luc: Also had some ideas - need to check if they are captured
- 15:07:24 [Luc]
- ack gk
- 15:07:37 [Zakim]
- +??P41
- 15:07:46 [stain]
- GK: By email - nature of provenance. Two possible roles for named graphs - which might be quite specific
- 15:07:53 [stain]
- GK: 1) Handling of accounts
- 15:07:54 [dgarijo]
- Zakim, ??P41 is me
- 15:07:54 [Zakim]
- +dgarijo; got it
- 15:08:04 [stain]
- GK: 2) Handling of contextual assertions of provenance
- 15:08:25 [jorn]
- jorn has joined #prov
- 15:08:39 [stain]
- GK: See my response in email response to Luc
- 15:08:54 [stain]
- GK: Need a way to encapsulate provenance statements to relate to a context
- 15:08:56 [Zakim]
- +??P42
- 15:09:03 [stain]
- GK: Suggest to not discuss this in this telcon as it can be complex
- 15:09:10 [jorn]
- Zakim: ??p42 is me
- 15:09:26 [stain]
- Luc: Could GK add this as a potential requirement on the wiki page?
- 15:09:54 [stain]
- ACTION GK: Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph
- 15:09:54 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-37 - Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-09-08].
- 15:09:57 [Luc]
- TOPIC: Name for the standard
- 15:09:57 [Vinh]
- Vinh has joined #prov
- 15:10:35 [stain]
- Luc: First draft to be released end of month - need a name for the model/language/etc. Proposals http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions
- 15:10:58 [stain]
- Luc: Straw poll here - but want to hear what people think about names
- 15:11:22 [satya]
- @Luc WE are counting PIF twice?
- 15:11:39 [Zakim]
- + +1.937.343.aahh
- 15:11:51 [Luc]
- 1,1,1
- 15:11:54 [stain]
- Luc: Particpants of the call have 3 votes - you can vote 3 on same name, 1 vote on 3 names, 3+1, etc
- 15:12:01 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:12:08 [Vinh]
- Zakim, +1.937.343.aahh is me
- 15:12:08 [Zakim]
- +Vinh; got it
- 15:12:48 [stain]
- Satya: Worried about double-counting PIF (#15, #16)
- 15:13:18 [stain]
- Satya: Suggest counting 15+16 as one
- 15:13:23 [Edoardo_]
- Edoardo_ has joined #prov
- 15:13:28 [stain]
- Luc: 15+16 now merged on wiki
- 15:13:33 [dgarijo]
- +3 to PIL
- 15:13:36 [stain]
- Luc: Indicate which ones you are voting for now
- 15:13:43 [smiles]
- 11, 11, 15
- 15:13:44 [SamCoppens]
- SamCoppens has joined #prov
- 15:13:45 [satya]
- 15, 15, 15
- 15:13:49 [Paolo]
- 3 14 15
- 15:13:52 [Lena]
- 3, 10, 15
- 15:13:57 [Curt]
- 5 15 14
- 15:14:06 [dcorsar]
- 3, 5, 14
- 15:14:08 [GK]
- 12, 13, 15
- 15:14:08 [stain]
- 5, 10, 12
- 15:14:15 [dgarijo]
- (5, 5, 5)
- 15:14:20 [sandro]
- 10 15
- 15:14:34 [Edoardo_]
- 3, 5, 11
- 15:14:40 [stain]
- Luc: We'll count the votes offline and send an email and hope to progress from there
- 15:14:43 [Zakim]
- +??P29
- 15:14:51 [stain]
- echo, echo
- 15:14:56 [Zakim]
- -??P75
- 15:14:57 [Edoardo_]
- Edoardo_ has left #prov
- 15:15:04 [Zakim]
- + +329331aaii
- 15:15:07 [Paolo]
- zakim, ??P29 is me
- 15:15:07 [Zakim]
- +Paolo; got it
- 15:15:07 [Edoardo_]
- Edoardo_ has joined #prov
- 15:15:18 [zednik]
- 5, 5, 15
- 15:15:20 [Luc]
- TOPIC: Primer Document
- 15:15:30 [Edoardo_]
- Edoardo_ has joined #prov
- 15:15:45 [SamCoppens]
- zakim, +329331aaii is me
- 15:15:45 [Zakim]
- +SamCoppens; got it
- 15:15:52 [Zakim]
- +Sandro.a
- 15:16:06 [stain]
- Luc: Discussed this 4 weeks ago, and said not to do a primer at that stage. Paolo and Luc as editors of model documents tries to illustrate the model - but also to specify it. It's difficult to do both in same document.
- 15:16:34 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:16:40 [stain]
- Luc: GK commented that this is not so useful - it's time to get on with a Primer document. Simon has expressed interest on worker on primer.
- 15:16:41 [GK]
- q+ to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer
- 15:16:56 [stain]
- Luc: Would you want to work on a primer - and what do you expect?
- 15:17:04 [smiles]
- q+
- 15:17:33 [stain]
- GK: I commented that a 50k feet view would belong in the model. Don't seem to be completely clear in consensus in what model contains, so uncertain about doing a primer now while model still in flux.
- 15:17:33 [satya]
- +1 for GK's point
- 15:18:09 [stain]
- GK: Also said that example was not useful - the complexity was such that it was as hard to understand to example as the message
- 15:18:32 [Luc]
- ack GK
- 15:18:32 [Zakim]
- GK, you wanted to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer
- 15:18:38 [stain]
- GK: Perhaps that example would fit better in a primer - but still seed need for a overview in the model
- 15:18:50 [Luc]
- ack smiles
- 15:19:01 [stain]
- smiles: example sounds good to include in the primer
- 15:19:16 [satya]
- q+
- 15:19:18 [stain]
- smiles: more clarity step by step - say why things are done how they are. Might be reasonable to start with a simpler example
- 15:19:56 [stain]
- smiles: high-level view on model, agree with GK. High-level in model doc, but also in the primer in more non-normative terms.
- 15:20:20 [stain]
- smiles: A high-level description in the model document might easily always be normative - easier to suggest how to interpret model in the primer
- 15:20:41 [Zakim]
- -Sandro.a
- 15:20:53 [stain]
- satya: Agree with previous, primer has 3 functions. 1. Simple example. How would model elements be used in non-normative description.
- 15:21:18 [stain]
- Satya: 2: How would this be modelled in OWL/RDF, bits of ontology doc. 3: How would it be accessed - elements of query document.
- 15:21:23 [GK]
- q+ to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec
- 15:21:28 [stain]
- Satya: Then give overall overview of how to handle provenance information
- 15:21:54 [stain]
- Satya: Now is not the optimal point for working on primer - look at it in the end of september when draft is published and discussed issues have settled
- 15:21:57 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:22:01 [Paolo]
- +1 for starting after initial model doc has been released
- 15:22:01 [Luc]
- ack satya
- 15:22:08 [Luc]
- ack gk
- 15:22:08 [Zakim]
- GK, you wanted to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec
- 15:22:20 [Zakim]
- - +1.860.995.aagg
- 15:22:41 [stain]
- GK: The representation in RDF should be a normative output - assumed that abstract model -> RDF would become part of model document.
- 15:23:01 [stain]
- Luc: Answer - No. RDF representation not in model document.
- 15:23:07 [Zakim]
- + +1.860.995.aajj
- 15:23:12 [stain]
- Luc: It would be in the formalisation document led by (?)
- 15:23:13 [Paolo]
- RDF repr should be somewhere but not in the conceptual model doc
- 15:23:42 [stain]
- @Paolo - yes - it should be formal, but not neccessarily part of the conceptual model
- 15:23:57 [stain]
- Luc: Illustrations can be done in RDF and/or the abstract .. - but not by end of September
- 15:24:12 [satya]
- q+
- 15:24:16 [Zakim]
- -??P42
- 15:24:24 [stain]
- GK: If this is to be useful on the web we need something to interoperate between application, and at least one normative format like RDF would be required
- 15:24:35 [Luc]
- ack satya
- 15:24:37 [Zakim]
- - +1.860.995.aajj
- 15:24:39 [stain]
- Luc: The normative spec will be included in the doc made by Satya
- 15:24:51 [Paolo]
- @GK mapping to RDF /is/ normative but in the ontology doc
- 15:25:13 [stain]
- Satya: The Ontology is the normative representation of the model. The illustrative RDF should corresponding to the normative OWL
- 15:25:17 [Zakim]
- + +1.860.995.aakk
- 15:25:24 [stain]
- Satya: Illustrated examples would be by the normative RDF format
- 15:25:24 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:25:29 [GK]
- I'm Ok with the normative mappingt to RD being in the ontology doc
- 15:25:59 [stain]
- Luc: Is the feeling to wait until end of September?
- 15:26:04 [Lena]
- me + stephan have defined the primer to be on our task force
- 15:26:10 [stain]
- Luc: Example is to have an example explained - ultimately a primer view
- 15:26:10 [satya]
- q+
- 15:26:13 [Lena]
- but we need the model to be described first
- 15:26:16 [stain]
- q+
- 15:26:24 [GK]
- I think when to start the primer depends on whoever wants to do the work :)
- 15:26:31 [Luc]
- ack satya
- 15:26:34 [Paolo]
- q+
- 15:26:44 [stain]
- Satya: Could be useful as Smiles would work on primer, if he participates more with the other 3 groups and identify content that can be migrated to the primer later
- 15:26:53 [Lena]
- i agree with graham that it would be a wild goose hunt to produce a primer while the model is a shifting target
- 15:27:18 [stain]
- Satya: Not a separate wiki page!
- 15:27:34 [stain]
- Satya: Do as comments as part of provenance.. query.. task force wiki page
- 15:27:46 [Luc]
- ack st
- 15:28:13 [GK]
- If start primer now, I think it should start as an proper draft document. +1 to not creating yet another wiki page.
- 15:28:38 [Luc]
- ack paolo
- 15:28:54 [stain]
- Stian: If we don't have a primer, will there for the initial draft be an overview document that shows a quick introduction of what the model/ontology is, etc.
- 15:29:01 [stain]
- Paolo: If someone works on primer now, should shadow the other work
- 15:29:14 [stain]
- Paolo: Should start work on a complete example - iterative process
- 15:29:31 [stain]
- @GK +1
- 15:29:37 [stain]
- Paolo: Would inform the primer
- 15:29:52 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:29:57 [stain]
- Paolo: See mutual benefits from Smiles and others shadowing
- 15:30:01 [smiles]
- q+
- 15:30:04 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 15:30:11 [stain]
- Luc: Paolo suggests working on complete example - a new example to design, or data journalism example?
- 15:30:19 [jorn]
- zakim, ??p3 is me
- 15:30:19 [Zakim]
- +jorn; got it
- 15:30:21 [stain]
- Paolo: Data J example not used in conceptual model docs
- 15:30:38 [GK]
- I'd say several examples: simple to complex, chosen to illusrate and/or test different points.
- 15:30:38 [stain]
- Paolo: If it is a good example, but no constraints
- 15:30:53 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:30:56 [stain]
- @GK, agree - show different bits instead of a massive example to learn first
- 15:30:57 [satya]
- @Paolo: :)
- 15:31:11 [stain]
- Paolo: Should anyway be a different example from the model document
- 15:31:47 [stain]
- smiles: an example section in the concept model document and formal document, and in access document - and then someone to edit those sections so that they are explained. Would that make sense?
- 15:31:58 [stain]
- Paolo: Not quite - something complementary
- 15:32:02 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:32:05 [Luc]
- ack smil
- 15:32:21 [stain]
- Paolo: That the model is sound and explain it, but a different model. Primer should not be part of the other documents.
- 15:32:56 [stain]
- smiles: Not the impression I got from others - they suggest it was too early, just wanted better examples in the normative documents
- 15:32:57 [GK]
- q+ to ask simon what he feels about this
- 15:33:06 [GK]
- q-
- 15:33:16 [stain]
- smiles: not much in either way
- 15:33:26 [satya]
- q+
- 15:33:27 [stain]
- smiles: someone can work on the example within the context of the existing docs
- 15:33:57 [stain]
- Luc: Then to replace the example section with something different? Don't want two examples in conceptual model doc
- 15:34:18 [stain]
- smiles: expect several examples in the primer. add more text to existing examples to explain and clarify at this stage
- 15:34:21 [GK]
- +1 independent choice of what goes in model document
- 15:34:46 [stain]
- Luc: have a problem with File example does not cover all the concepts
- 15:34:54 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:34:54 [stain]
- Luc: Would be useful with an example that highlights all concepts
- 15:35:08 [stain]
- smiles: raise issues in that regard - edit the example
- 15:35:17 [Luc]
- ack satya
- 15:35:28 [GK]
- Is it appropriate/necessary for the model document to have examples covering *all* aspects?
- 15:35:40 [stain]
- satya: in the primer document with should have one example, and use this in all the documents.
- 15:36:05 [stain]
- satya: would DataJournalism example be better, Luc?
- 15:36:23 [GK]
- If model document is formal description, that should cover the essential content, methinks
- 15:36:25 [stain]
- Luc: DataJ example is fairly long, does not expose all concepts either
- 15:36:54 [stain]
- satya: Try to create snapshot examples for each model, in provenance ontology group we discussed this. Then do bottom-up approach for each element - then consolidate as one big example
- 15:36:59 [Lena]
- +1 for bottom-up!
- 15:37:00 [zednik]
- q+
- 15:37:16 [stain]
- Luc: Worried about changing at this late stage before going first public draft
- 15:37:51 [stain]
- satya: keep file scenario, but what we have in mind, we write in down in the conceptual model, as it evolves, keep append it to the top scenario
- 15:37:55 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:38:07 [stain]
- zednik: what are we compiling all into one example?
- 15:38:18 [stain]
- zednik: may have a complicated, silly example if we merge everything into one
- 15:38:21 [Lena]
- +1 for stephan's comment
- 15:38:23 [Luc]
- ack zedn
- 15:38:24 [stain]
- @zednik +1
- 15:38:25 [zednik]
- q-
- 15:38:35 [satya]
- @Stephan - good point!
- 15:38:40 [GK]
- @zednik +1
- 15:38:51 [stain]
- Luc: So we're not quite clear yet - think a bit more and come up with a concrete proposal for next telcon
- 15:38:51 [Paolo]
- @zednik +1 -- conceptual model already has two separate scenarios
- 15:39:04 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:39:07 [Paolo]
- (file editing, Royal Society)
- 15:39:27 [stain]
- ACTION smiles: Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material
- 15:39:27 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-38 - Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material [on Simon Miles - due 2011-09-08].
- 15:39:38 [Luc]
- TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions
- 15:39:56 [stain]
- Luc: Did not reach consensus last week on past vs present tense
- 15:40:18 [stain]
- Luc: Look at what we said on the edges - some confusion last week. Proposal in the agenda
- 15:40:28 [dgarijo]
- can we post the proposal please?
- 15:40:34 [Luc]
- proposed: Edge labels contain a verb
- 15:40:49 [stain]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.01#Adopting_naming_conventions
- 15:40:49 [Luc]
- isUsedBy, isControlledBy, isDerivedFrom, hasParticipants
- 15:41:04 [dgarijo]
- +q
- 15:41:08 [stain]
- Luc: Example of what form of verbs we would have
- 15:41:35 [stain]
- dgarijo: agree on having verb in the edge - but would strongly disagree on 'isUsedBy'
- 15:41:48 [stain]
- dgarijo: an artifact is used by a process and produced by a process
- 15:42:03 [stain]
- Luc: not suggesting these actual labels - but the general principle
- 15:42:04 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:42:16 [Luc]
- ack dg
- 15:42:21 [stain]
- Luc: Not proposing domain/range direction now - just that the term contains a verb
- 15:42:24 [stain]
- q+
- 15:43:13 [GK]
- This is an area where I think a 50,000 foot view would help
- 15:43:36 [stain]
- Luc: Model document lists all labels.. but we're trying to adopt a convention if verb is explicit
- 15:43:39 [GK]
- To see all the names related as a composite structure ... see if they make sense together
- 15:44:02 [stain]
- Stian: Not sure if we'll get too much of isSomethingBy - could get a bit convoulted vs. 'something'
- 15:44:15 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 15:44:24 [stain]
- GK: This is where a bird eye view would help - a diagram showing classes and relationships - although simplified
- 15:44:46 [satya]
- @GK: you mean a visualization of the model?
- 15:44:47 [dgarijo]
- we have generated an overview of the ontology if that's what you mean, Graham: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/a/ad/GlobalSchema.png
- 15:44:59 [stain]
- GK: Considering terms in isolation - then it's difficult as you loose the context in which they will work
- 15:45:03 [Zakim]
- +??P27
- 15:45:05 [Zakim]
- -jorn
- 15:45:20 [satya]
- @Daniel +1
- 15:45:26 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 15:45:34 [jorn]
- zakim, ??p3 is me
- 15:45:34 [Zakim]
- +jorn; got it
- 15:45:46 [stain]
- Luc: in emails - Instead of isComplementOf - then say complement? hasParticipants -> participants
- 15:45:54 [stain]
- Luc: Satya reacted that this was not useful
- 15:45:58 [stain]
- Luc: Two conventions
- 15:46:14 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:46:17 [stain]
- Luc: what label conventions do we adopt
- 15:46:26 [stain]
- ack stain
- 15:46:51 [Luc]
- proposed: Edge labels contain a verb
- 15:46:58 [dgarijo]
- +1
- 15:46:59 [satya]
- +!
- 15:47:01 [StephenCresswell]
- +1
- 15:47:02 [satya]
- +1
- 15:47:03 [GK]
- (Truth is, I don't feel strongly about the naming convention)
- 15:47:06 [Curt]
- +1
- 15:47:11 [Lena]
- +1
- 15:47:11 [GK]
- +0.5
- 15:47:14 [smiles]
- 0
- 15:47:15 [stain]
- 0
- 15:47:21 [Paolo]
- +1 don't feel very strongly either
- 15:47:36 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED: Edge labels contain a verb
- 15:47:37 [zednik]
- +1
- 15:47:42 [Edoardo_]
- +1
- 15:48:00 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:48:05 [stain]
- Luc: If we have a verb - then we need to decide on the tense - like present or past
- 15:48:11 [dgarijo]
- +1 to PAST tense
- 15:48:14 [smiles]
- q+
- 15:48:18 [Edoardo_]
- +1 past
- 15:48:21 [Paolo]
- Past tense
- 15:48:32 [Luc]
- ack smi
- 15:48:34 [dgarijo]
- since provenance is describing things that have already happened
- 15:48:43 [satya]
- +1 for past tense
- 15:48:55 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:49:07 [stain]
- +1 to present
- 15:49:09 [Curt]
- The other issue was whether to always include the "is" or not.
- 15:49:15 [Curt]
- instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar"
- 15:49:23 [GK]
- (Next question: convention for passive or active voice? Slightly TIC)
- 15:49:32 [stain]
- Luc: Just voted to have a verb
- 15:49:39 [stain]
- Curt: "controlled by" has a verb
- 15:49:42 [GK]
- "controlled" is a verb
- 15:49:46 [stain]
- @GK right
- 15:50:07 [stain]
- ?: "used by" has a verb
- 15:50:22 [stain]
- GK: Sounds like passive or active voice
- 15:50:58 [stain]
- Luc: "Used" is a verb - "I used X" - but "X used by I"..
- 15:51:04 [stain]
- GK: Yes - it's a verb, but in passive voice
- 15:51:15 [stain]
- ?: Implicit or explicit verb
- 15:51:40 [GK]
- Sorry, that;'s the *active* voice
- 15:51:47 [stain]
- Luc: "used by" is not a verb - just "used\'
- 15:52:07 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:52:13 [stain]
- @GK, Perhaps passive is good as provenance is describing what went on
- 15:52:32 [stain]
- Luc: Unsure how to progress
- 15:52:41 [stain]
- q+ Can we say this is a separate proposal?
- 15:52:41 [GK]
- Propose: editoprs come up with series of names and let the gropup comment
- 15:52:47 [Paolo]
- q+
- 15:52:48 [satya]
- @Stian: Well it depends, I think active and passive are both useful
- 15:52:52 [Curt]
- +1 keep the explicit "is" verb, passive form, past tense
- 15:53:17 [GK]
- @smiles +1
- 15:53:20 [stain]
- ?: Just a case of people being unclear with what is a verb or not - the previous proposal was accepted - we're moving on to past tense or not
- 15:53:44 [Luc]
- proposed: To use past tense for verbs
- 15:53:51 [Paolo]
- q-
- 15:53:51 [stain]
- Luc: Need to formulate a proposal
- 15:53:51 [dgarijo]
- the thing is that I would not be sure how to say that a process Used an artifact with "used by", since that means that an artifact is Used by a process
- 15:53:55 [smiles]
- +1
- 15:54:19 [stain]
- Luc: What is dgarijo suggesting..?
- 15:54:19 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:54:24 [GK]
- Example: used rather than uses ?
- 15:54:40 [stain]
- dgarijo: what would be the name of the edge of 'used' with the verb?
- 15:54:57 [stain]
- Luc: process "uses" an entity
- 15:55:04 [JimMcCusker]
- JimMcCusker has joined #prov
- 15:55:11 [stain]
- Luc: But proposal for past tense means "process used entity"
- 15:55:17 [GK]
- used vs wasUsedBy - both past tense, but different directions
- 15:55:30 [stain]
- dgarijo: Why can't we use "control"
- 15:55:34 [stain]
- @GK - exactly
- 15:55:47 [stain]
- @GK and last week we talked about temporal directions
- 15:56:06 [stain]
- dgarijo: liked better "wasControlledBy" - but someone would ask if we say "used" then why not "controlled"
- 15:56:30 [stain]
- @GK the verb is good because it highlights exactly this direction
- 15:56:42 [Luc]
- proposed: To use past tense for verbs
- 15:56:51 [satya]
- +1
- 15:56:51 [smiles]
- +1
- 15:56:51 [dgarijo]
- +1 to past tense
- 15:56:52 [stain]
- +1
- 15:56:52 [StephenCresswell]
- +1
- 15:56:53 [Curt]
- +1
- 15:56:54 [GK]
- +1
- 15:56:59 [zednik]
- +1
- 15:57:02 [Edoardo_]
- +1
- 15:57:05 [dcorsar]
- +1
- 15:57:08 [Paolo]
- +1
- 15:57:17 [Luc]
- accepted: To use past tense for verbs
- 15:57:38 [satya]
- agree
- 15:57:39 [stain]
- Luc: Implications for Satya and Paolo/Luc to update documents to use past tense and verbs
- 15:57:40 [Luc]
- q?
- 15:57:51 [Zakim]
- -??P77
- 15:57:53 [Luc]
- topic: Provenance Ontology
- 15:57:53 [stain]
- @Luc shall I action that?
- 15:57:54 [dgarijo]
- @Satya, didn't you already put everything in past tense in the ontology?
- 15:57:59 [satya]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
- 15:58:12 [stain]
- Satya: No telcon on Monday, travelling/unavailable
- 15:58:26 [stain]
- Satya: made example of file scenario
- 15:58:33 [stain]
- satya: would like reviews and comments on this
- 15:58:53 [stain]
- satya: two objectives, define extension mechanism - how application can extend to model in their domain
- 15:59:02 [stain]
- satya: show how instances can be created using the ontology
- 15:59:31 [stain]
- satya: Pointed out that formal document includes RDF fragments showing encoding of the (?) scenario - welcome to have a look at this
- 15:59:35 [stain]
- satya: send comments as soon as possible
- 15:59:47 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:00:03 [dgarijo]
- @stain it is the crime file scenario
- 16:00:05 [JimMcCusker]
- +q
- 16:00:14 [stain]
- Luc: Would be useful to see the complete example encoded in RDF. In the document it's only shown a particular entity. Complete example?
- 16:00:21 [stain]
- satya: yes - it's at..
- 16:00:42 [satya]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RDF_Graph_for_Crime_File_Scenario
- 16:01:04 [Zakim]
- -jorn
- 16:01:08 [dgarijo]
- the image: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/thumb/d/da/CrimeFileRDFGraph.png/900px-CrimeFileRDFGraph.png
- 16:01:09 [stain]
- satya: not suggesting to include the full RDF into the document
- 16:01:31 [stain]
- dgarijo: :(
- 16:01:51 [stain]
- JimMcCusker: IVPof and complement of seemsto have lost track of what is meant by those
- 16:02:08 [satya]
- @Stian: Daniel pointed to an auto generated diagram, we will re-structure that :)
- 16:02:08 [stain]
- JimMcCusker: might want to put together a page to start usecases of what this construct is adressing
- 16:02:19 [stain]
- @satya - I tried to zoom!
- 16:02:48 [stain]
- Luc: perhaps an model issue, not ontology issue
- 16:02:55 [stain]
- Luc: important to raise such issues on the tracker
- 16:02:56 [dgarijo]
- @stain: yes, maybe the rdf is better right now
- 16:03:09 [stain]
- Luc: discussion taking place - but difficult to understand what the problem is
- 16:03:12 [satya]
- @Stian: yes - we will create a separate diagram
- 16:03:23 [Zakim]
- -??P21
- 16:03:38 [stain]
- Luc: Jim Mayers does not like isComplementOf as a label - but it's not raised as an issue yet - but he seems happy with the definition
- 16:03:40 [satya]
- I also have issue with the "complement" label
- 16:04:25 [stain]
- JimMcCusker: what was talked about with complement-of seems very difficult from IVP-of
- 16:04:27 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:04:32 [Paolo]
- q+
- 16:04:47 [stain]
- Luc: Paolo and myself changed the definition to make them uniform
- 16:05:06 [stain]
- Luc: is-complement-of had to be revised to match entity's definition - but believe it's still the same spirit of original def
- 16:05:08 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:05:16 [stain]
- Luc: Please raise this as tracker issues
- 16:05:28 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 16:05:28 [Luc]
- ack Ji
- 16:05:55 [stain]
- JimMcCusker: tasked to formalise this is-complement-of for the ontology group - it has been difficult to trace out
- 16:06:03 [stain]
- JimMcCusker: should ignore emails and look at the wiki?
- 16:06:11 [stain]
- Luc: no - the conceptual model document
- 16:06:19 [stain]
- http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
- 16:06:33 [stain]
- Luc: but creating a set of complement-of usecases sounds good
- 16:06:37 [Luc]
- ack pao
- 16:06:54 [stain]
- Paolo: is illustrated with figure in model
- 16:07:00 [stain]
- http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-IVP-of
- 16:07:16 [stain]
- Paolo: feels responsible for this - so will engage with any discussion
- 16:07:24 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:07:50 [stain]
- Luc: Satya - what are the key issues now with ontology?
- 16:08:08 [stain]
- Luc: Last week you needed better understanding of model - is it better now?
- 16:08:21 [stain]
- satya: no - need to respond to email. What are top level concepts?
- 16:08:41 [stain]
- satya: we agreed ; two top-level concepts - but you suggest there could be more top level concepots
- 16:08:52 [stain]
- satya: perhaps Luc/Paolo to attend a telcon
- 16:09:08 [Paolo]
- agree that we (two groups) should interact
- 16:09:08 [stain]
- satya: fundamental - what are the top level concepts
- 16:09:29 [stain]
- Luc: Example of Role,.. what is not entity and process execution
- 16:09:32 [stain]
- (?)
- 16:09:43 [dgarijo]
- and we are currently discussing the modeling of n-ary relationship with the role-trick you proposed, Satya
- 16:09:51 [stain]
- satya: process is a type of entity - def is a continuent, location, etc.
- 16:10:04 [stain]
- satya: sounds quite broad definition, defined in many upper level ontologies
- 16:10:12 [stain]
- Luc: Should join next week's call
- 16:10:17 [stain]
- satya: Monday 12:00 eastern
- 16:10:25 [Paolo]
- ok
- 16:10:33 [stain]
- satya: could do separate if needed
- 16:10:33 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:10:45 [Zakim]
- - +1.315.330.aadd
- 16:10:45 [stain]
- Thank you!
- 16:10:46 [Zakim]
- -satya
- 16:10:47 [Zakim]
- -??P18
- 16:10:47 [GK]
- Bye
- 16:10:49 [Zakim]
- -Paolo
- 16:10:51 [Zakim]
- - +1.860.995.aakk
- 16:10:51 [Zakim]
- -dgarijo
- 16:10:51 [Zakim]
- -SamCoppens
- 16:10:52 [Zakim]
- -??P17
- 16:10:53 [stain]
- Luc, what do I do now?
- 16:10:54 [Zakim]
- -Vinh
- 16:10:55 [stain]
- ok, thnx
- 16:10:57 [dgarijo]
- bye!
- 16:11:02 [Zakim]
- -stain
- 16:11:04 [Zakim]
- -Luc
- 16:11:05 [Zakim]
- -Curt
- 16:11:06 [Zakim]
- -GK
- 16:11:09 [Zakim]
- -??P32
- 16:11:11 [Zakim]
- - +1.518.633.aaff
- 16:11:12 [Zakim]
- -??P27
- 16:11:38 [Luc]
- rrsagent, set log public
- 16:11:43 [Luc]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:11:43 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-prov-minutes.html Luc
- 16:11:49 [Luc]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 16:11:49 [trackbot]
- Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
- 16:14:21 [stain]
- ah, GK scribed over using my name instead of nick.. :-/
- 16:16:51 [Zakim]
- -??P12
- 16:16:52 [Zakim]
- SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
- 16:16:54 [Zakim]
- Attendees were +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, satya, +1.315.330.aadd, Curt, GK, +1.518.633.aaff, stain, +1.860.995.aagg, Sandro, dgarijo, Vinh, Paolo, SamCoppens, +1.860.995.aajj,
- 16:16:57 [Zakim]
- ... +1.860.995.aakk, jorn
- 17:04:53 [GK]
- GK has left #prov
- 18:21:47 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #prov
- 18:22:30 [MacTed]
- MacTed has joined #prov
- 18:30:37 [MacTed]
- sorry to have missed today's call... 'isConsumedBy' or 'isInputTo' have occurred to me and feel better than 'isUsedBy' (or s/is/was/)