Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Luc revisited the charter, its deliverables and the timetable. We have three months to produce the First Public Working Draft for the model and formalization. It is proposed we also work on provenance access, with the same timescale. The objectives of this F2F meeting are to put things in place so that we can start creating specification documents, raise issues against them and iterate their designs over the next three months.
Paolo presented the work undertaken by the Model TF upto F2F1. This was then followed by a long discussion on pil:Thing, and specifically, the difficulty some group members have in grasping the concept. It was felt that notion of variance/invariance of properties needed specific attention. No specific resolution was reached.
Instead of the word "stuff", it was agreed that entity would be more appropriate. A new working definition of pil:thing was put forward by Jim McCusker. While it was not formally approved by the group, it felt that it better represented the meaning we wanted to ascribe to pil:thing. We also considered alternative terms for pil:thing. A placeholder word was adopted, BOB, but in discussion, it was frequent for group members to refer to Entity State.
Session 3: Connection TF & Implementation TF
EricS and StephanZ respectively presented the work accomplished by the Connection and Implementation Task Forces. A good set of connections and implementers are identified. It was agreed that these task forces would focus on establishing a relationship with other groups/implementers,and keeping them ready to review our first public working drafts as they are released at T+6.
The definitions of concepts "process execution", "generation", "use", and "derivation" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).
12:50:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc ←
12:50:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
12:50:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
12:50:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
12:50:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
12:50:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2011
12:50:55 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
<luc>Guest: Eric Prud'hommeaux
12:50:55 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 50 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 50 minutes ago ←
12:51:17 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable
12:51:18 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started ←
12:51:25 <Zakim> + +1.617.715.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.715.aaaa ←
12:52:28 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
12:52:35 <Luc> Scribe: Simon Miles
(Scribe set to Simon Miles)
12:52:39 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
12:54:27 <Luc> conference code 77681#
Luc Moreau: conference code 77681# ←
12:54:46 <sandro> zakim, this is prov1
Sandro Hawke: zakim, this is prov1 ←
12:54:46 <Zakim> sandro, this was already SW_(PROV1)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, this was already SW_(PROV1)8:00AM ←
12:54:47 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV1)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV1)8:00AM ←
12:55:42 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
12:55:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa ←
12:55:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot ←
12:55:46 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 ←
12:56:04 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room
Sandro Hawke: zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room ←
12:56:05 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
12:57:24 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT: 77681# (note the "1")
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT: 77681# (note the "1") ←
13:02:36 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
13:02:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room ←
13:02:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot ←
13:03:06 <stain> mr. conference is not listening to my code
Stian Soiland-Reyes: mr. conference is not listening to my code ←
13:03:28 <stain> it's restricted at this time
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it's restricted at this time ←
13:03:29 <stain> what code is it?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what code is it? ←
13:03:50 <pgroth> hmm, it should be the same one, right?
Paul Groth: hmm, it should be the same one, right? ←
13:04:12 <Luc> conference code 77681#
Luc Moreau: conference code 77681# ←
13:04:18 <stain> ah.. with a 1 in the end
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ah.. with a 1 in the end ←
13:04:31 <stain> no, it's not valid
Stian Soiland-Reyes: no, it's not valid ←
13:05:10 <stain> The conference is restricted at this time for 7768# - not valid for 77681#
Stian Soiland-Reyes: The conference is restricted at this time for 7768# - not valid for 77681# ←
13:05:13 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.633.aabb ←
13:05:34 <zednik> I just got on with 77681#
Stephan Zednik: I just got on with 77681# ←
13:06:03 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aacc ←
13:06:06 <stain> hurray
Stian Soiland-Reyes: hurray ←
13:06:19 <stain> Zakim: +44.789.470.aacc is me
13:06:32 <stain> (and my mobile number recognized from Skype)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (and my mobile number recognized from Skype) ←
13:06:39 <stain> is there a ppt or video link?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: is there a ppt or video link? ←
13:08:17 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
13:08:26 <stain> Zakim: +??P9 is me
13:09:43 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
13:09:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, +1.518.633.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, ??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, +1.518.633.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, ??P9 ←
13:09:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot ←
13:09:47 <zednik> will there be any screen sharing? webex or gotomeeting?
Stephan Zednik: will there be any screen sharing? webex or gotomeeting? ←
13:10:21 <zednik> + +1.518.633.aabb
Stephan Zednik: + +1.518.633.aabb ←
13:10:41 <zednik> Zakim: +1.518.633.aabb is me
13:11:03 <stain> zakim, +??P9 is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, +??P9 is me ←
13:11:03 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9' ←
13:11:13 <stain> Zakim: ??P9 is me
13:11:21 <stain> Zakim, ??P9 is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, ??P9 is me ←
13:11:21 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
13:11:28 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me ←
13:11:28 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
13:11:55 <zednik> Zakim, +1.518.633.aabb is me
Stephan Zednik: Zakim, +1.518.633.aabb is me ←
13:11:55 <Zakim> +zednik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik; got it ←
<luc> Topic: Introduction and Admin issues
Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Luc revisited the charter, its deliverables and the timetable. We have three months to produce the First Public Working Draft for the model and formalization. It is proposed we also work on provenance access, with the same timescale. The objectives of this F2F meeting are to put things in place so that we can start creating specification documents, raise issues against them and iterate their designs over the next three months.
<luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Luc revisited the charter, its deliverables and the timetable. We have three months to produce the First Public Working Draft for the model and formalization. It is proposed we also work on provenance access, with the same timescale. The objectives of this F2F meeting are to put things in place so that we can start creating specification documents, raise issues against them and iterate their designs over the next three months.
13:12:01 <smiles> Luc: a round of introductions...
Luc Moreau: a round of introductions... ←
13:12:12 <smiles> Luc: I am a co-chair of the WG
Luc Moreau: I am a co-chair of the WG ←
13:12:33 <stain> we only hear fragments as the conference telephone is muting you too eagerly
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we only hear fragments as the conference telephone is muting you too eagerly ←
13:13:12 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
13:13:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, zednik, stain, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, zednik, stain, stain ←
13:13:25 <tlebo> we will be louder
Timothy Lebo: we will be louder ←
13:14:30 <smiles> Luc: all participants to introduce themselves
Luc Moreau: all participants to introduce themselves ←
13:15:00 <smiles> Luc: 4 sessions today, 4 today; finish 5pm on dot tomorrow, maybe later today
Luc Moreau: 4 sessions today, 4 today; finish 5pm on dot tomorrow, maybe later today ←
13:15:33 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 30 Jun telecon
Luc Moreau: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 30 Jun telecon ←
13:15:41 <smiles> +1
+1 ←
13:15:42 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
13:15:43 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
13:15:51 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
13:16:04 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of 30 Jun telecon
RESOLVED: minutes of 30 Jun telecon ←
13:16:21 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
13:16:31 <smiles> Luc: Action review - no actions
Luc Moreau: Action review - no actions ←
13:16:56 <smiles> Luc: Meeting objectives: slides available from agenda page
Luc Moreau: Meeting objectives: slides available from agenda page ←
13:16:56 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf
Stian Soiland-Reyes: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf ←
13:17:16 <smiles> Luc: 7 deliverables and timetable to produce them are in the charter
Luc Moreau: 7 deliverables and timetable to produce them are in the charter ←
13:17:39 <smiles> ... first draft of conceptual and formal models due in 3 months time
... first draft of conceptual and formal models due in 3 months time ←
13:18:31 <smiles> ... What would we like to release by 6 months deadline?
... What would we like to release by 6 months deadline? ←
13:18:36 <stain> zednik: are you able to hear this..?
Stephan Zednik: are you able to hear this..? [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
13:19:10 <smiles> ... aspire to define *core* concepts and resolve most issues for these concepts
... aspire to define *core* concepts and resolve most issues for these concepts ←
13:19:11 <stain> both my skype and voip connection are fragmenting a lot.. "that's the minimal. We need the inspir... ahsl ... got some agreements
Stian Soiland-Reyes: both my skype and voip connection are fragmenting a lot.. "that's the minimal. We need the inspir... ahsl ... got some agreements ←
13:19:39 <smiles> Deborah: Are which are core concepts documented somewhere?
Deborah McGuinness: Are which are core concepts documented somewhere? ←
13:20:00 <khalidbelhajjame> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceConcepts
Khalid Belhajjame: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceConcepts ←
13:20:37 <smiles> Luc: for formal model first draft, have lightweight model using semweb technologies, have resolved issues related to that model
Luc Moreau: for formal model first draft, have lightweight model using semweb technologies, have resolved issues related to that model ←
13:20:51 <zednik> stain: the audio is quiet but followable for me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: the audio is quiet but followable for me [ Scribe Assist by Stephan Zednik ] ←
13:21:17 <smiles> Luc: access and query TF, could aim to produce draft regarding access only by 6 months deadline
Luc Moreau: access and query TF, could aim to produce draft regarding access only by 6 months deadline ←
13:21:38 <smiles> ... issues related to the proposals resolved by first draft
... issues related to the proposals resolved by first draft ←
13:21:57 <smiles> Luc: any comments on first draft aims?
Luc Moreau: any comments on first draft aims? ←
13:22:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:22:16 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
13:22:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:22:32 <GK> zakim, ??P10 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P10 is me ←
13:22:32 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
13:23:19 <GK> zakim, who is talking?
Graham Klyne: zakim, who is talking? ←
13:23:20 <smiles> Paulo: in incubator group, we identified core concepts which we now use in WG, but can see some redundancy and overlapping in them
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: in incubator group, we identified core concepts which we now use in WG, but can see some redundancy and overlapping in them ←
13:23:31 <Zakim> GK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (52%)
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (52%) ←
13:23:46 <Deborah> so the ProvenanceConcepts link above by khalidbelhajjame i think is a set of proposed core ; is there a similar list for other concepts that may or may not be included?
Deborah McGuinness: so the ProvenanceConcepts link above by khalidbelhajjame i think is a set of proposed core ; is there a similar list for other concepts that may or may not be included? ←
13:23:58 <smiles> Luc: agreed that need to avoid overlap/ambiguity
Luc Moreau: agreed that need to avoid overlap/ambiguity ←
13:24:18 <Deborah> (sorry - Deborah is Deborah - i named myself but irc did not take it)
Deborah McGuinness: (sorry - Deborah is Deborah - i named myself but irc did not take it) ←
13:24:20 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
13:24:36 <smiles> ... shows slide proposing process for next 3 months
... shows slide proposing process for next 3 months ←
13:24:49 <stain> GK, the sound might drop if the meeting goes quiet - as long as someone keeps making noise or talking it's OK :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: GK, the sound might drop if the meeting goes quiet - as long as someone keeps making noise or talking it's OK :) ←
13:25:04 <smiles> ... aspiration to define all the core concepts in the charter as identified by model TF
... aspiration to define all the core concepts in the charter as identified by model TF ←
13:25:06 <stain> GK: we're on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf
Graham Klyne: we're on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
13:25:22 <sandro> WEBCAM IS UP. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam
Sandro Hawke: WEBCAM IS UP. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam ←
13:25:37 <sandro> (Sorry for low contrast on slides... the room is fairly bright.)
Sandro Hawke: (Sorry for low contrast on slides... the room is fairly bright.) ←
13:25:58 <stain> sandro: thanks, it's quite allright
Sandro Hawke: thanks, it's quite allright [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
13:26:06 <smiles> ... as soon as F2F1 over, want to produce draft of deliverables in W3C style, including schema (formal model)
... as soon as F2F1 over, want to produce draft of deliverables in W3C style, including schema (formal model) ←
13:26:11 <GK> @sandro, looks pretty useful, tx
Graham Klyne: @sandro, looks pretty useful, tx ←
13:26:52 <smiles> ... then review period, using W3C tools; it is here that we raise issues of overlap, redundancy etc.
... then review period, using W3C tools; it is here that we raise issues of overlap, redundancy etc. ←
13:27:19 <smiles> ... use telecons to discuss and resolve, prioritised by how much traffic on mailing list
... use telecons to discuss and resolve, prioritised by how much traffic on mailing list ←
13:27:57 <smiles> ... iterate for each issue, resolve by vote; last 2 weeks to finalise documents
... iterate for each issue, resolve by vote; last 2 weeks to finalise documents ←
13:28:39 <GK> @smiles, ReSpec makes it v. easy to make W3C style docs - http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
Graham Klyne: @smiles, ReSpec makes it v. easy to make W3C style docs - http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html ←
13:28:49 <smiles> Khalid: two deliverables are due at same time, but D2 (formal model) dependent on D1 (conceptual model)
Khalid Belhajjame: two deliverables are due at same time, but D2 (formal model) dependent on D1 (conceptual model) ←
13:29:17 <smiles> Luc: have to do in parallel, co-evolve; people will be working on both
Luc Moreau: have to do in parallel, co-evolve; people will be working on both ←
13:29:27 <smiles> Ilkay: confusion between formal model and formal semantics
Ilkay Altintas: confusion between formal model and formal semantics ←
13:30:05 <smiles> PaulG: formal model is instantiation of model in semweb technology; (formal model is bad name); formal semantics is mathematical definition
Paul Groth: formal model is instantiation of model in semweb technology; (formal model is bad name); formal semantics is mathematical definition ←
13:30:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:30:59 <Luc> ack
Luc Moreau: ack ←
13:31:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:31:06 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
13:31:14 <Luc> ack IlkayAltintas
Luc Moreau: ack IlkayAltintas ←
13:31:15 <zednik> very quiet right now
Stephan Zednik: very quiet right now ←
13:31:20 <Deborah> perhaps we should use another name rather than formal model - i think it is confusing - perhaps schema model
Deborah McGuinness: perhaps we should use another name rather than formal model - i think it is confusing - perhaps schema model ←
13:31:29 <Deborah> q+
Deborah McGuinness: q+ ←
13:31:30 <zednik> q?
Stephan Zednik: q? ←
13:31:32 <smiles> jcheney: ambiguity in term formalisation, could mean mathematics or schema
James Cheney: ambiguity in term formalisation, could mean mathematics or schema ←
13:31:43 <smiles> Paolo: note that D3 (formal semantics) is optional
Paolo Missier: note that D3 (formal semantics) is optional ←
13:32:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:32:13 <smiles> Luc: specified optional because we weren't sure if there would be critical in mass in WG; it seems that there is
Luc Moreau: specified optional because we weren't sure if there would be critical in mass in WG; it seems that there is ←
13:32:48 <smiles> Deborah: terms may confuse readers
Deborah McGuinness: terms may confuse readers ←
13:32:54 <GK> I think there is a danger that formal semantics makes a spec *less* useful if it's over-specfified / over-constrained.
Graham Klyne: I think there is a danger that formal semantics makes a spec *less* useful if it's over-specfified / over-constrained. ←
13:33:04 <smiles> PaulG: mean "schema"
Paul Groth: mean "schema" ←
13:33:26 <smiles> Deborah: we need 1 schema
Deborah McGuinness: we need 1 schema ←
13:33:40 <GK> I'm not speaking against formal semantics, but think it needs to be approached lightly.
Graham Klyne: I'm not speaking against formal semantics, but think it needs to be approached lightly. ←
13:34:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:34:07 <smiles> Luc: for first draft, we are suggesting lightweight (e.g. RDFS) schema
Luc Moreau: for first draft, we are suggesting lightweight (e.g. RDFS) schema ←
13:34:25 <Luc> ack qwebirc
Luc Moreau: ack qwebirc ←
13:34:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:34:35 <smiles> (note for minuting: qwebirc = Deborah)
(note for minuting: qwebirc = Deborah) ←
13:34:49 <smiles> Luc: objectives for this meeting:
Luc Moreau: objectives for this meeting: ←
13:35:01 <smiles> ... gain further agreement on concept definitions
... gain further agreement on concept definitions ←
13:35:20 <smiles> ... solve some issues in concept definitions; some will be left to those defining schema
... solve some issues in concept definitions; some will be left to those defining schema ←
13:35:30 <smiles> ... describe journalism example using concepts
... describe journalism example using concepts ←
13:35:41 <smiles> ... discuss possible graphical notation
... discuss possible graphical notation ←
13:35:59 <Deborah> Just for the record, I would like to get an RDFS as well as an OWL encoding (luc thought an owl encoding may take too much time - I think we can get a lightweight one out)
Deborah McGuinness: Just for the record, I would like to get an RDFS as well as an OWL encoding (luc thought an owl encoding may take too much time - I think we can get a lightweight one out) ←
13:36:02 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
13:36:14 <smiles> ... gain agreement on provenance access, decide document structure, decide tech, resolve some issues
... gain agreement on provenance access, decide document structure, decide tech, resolve some issues ←
13:36:50 <smiles> ... for other two TFs, decide where we are going to go next, what test cases are and what we will do with them; identify responsibilities, ownership of documents
... for other two TFs, decide where we are going to go next, what test cases are and what we will do with them; identify responsibilities, ownership of documents ←
13:36:57 <smiles> Luc: anything else?
Luc Moreau: anything else? ←
13:37:07 <smiles> Paolo: are we happy with the journalism example?
Paolo Missier: are we happy with the journalism example? ←
13:37:22 <smiles> pgroth: example can change, but agreed as that as basis
Paul Groth: example can change, but agreed as that as basis ←
13:37:54 <smiles> Luc: good to adapt to expose problems of change
Luc Moreau: good to adapt to expose problems of change ←
13:38:31 <smiles> jcheney: need other examples also so that others see connection with their domains
James Cheney: need other examples also so that others see connection with their domains ←
13:38:41 <smiles> pgroth: for illustration purposes, nice to have one
Paul Groth: for illustration purposes, nice to have one ←
<luc> Topic: Session 1: Model Task Force
Summary: Paolo presented the work undertaken by the Model TF upto F2F1. This was then followed by a long discussion on pil:Thing, and specifically, the difficulty some group members have in grasping the concept. It was felt that notion of variance/invariance of properties needed specific attention. No specific resolution was reached.
<luc>Summary: Paolo presented the work undertaken by the Model TF upto F2F1. This was then followed by a long discussion on pil:Thing, and specifically, the difficulty some group members have in grasping the concept. It was felt that notion of variance/invariance of properties needed specific attention. No specific resolution was reached.
13:39:03 <smiles> Luc: Move onto next topic: Model TF
Luc Moreau: Move onto next topic: Model TF ←
13:40:40 <stain> is it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/att-0017/ModelTaskForce_F2F1.pptx ?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: is it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/att-0017/ModelTaskForce_F2F1.pptx ? ←
13:40:46 <smiles> Paolo: introduces TF members
Paolo Missier: introduces TF members ←
13:41:10 <smiles> Paolo: overall objective of TF to define provenance model
Paolo Missier: overall objective of TF to define provenance model ←
13:41:27 <smiles> ... starting points: incubator group report, journalism example
... starting points: incubator group report, journalism example ←
13:42:07 <smiles> ... initially articulate concepts independently of semweb, then connect and define schema after and provide semantics
... initially articulate concepts independently of semweb, then connect and define schema after and provide semantics ←
13:43:00 <smiles> ... for F2F1, tried to consolidate effort on mailing list, Wiki around key concepts discussed
... for F2F1, tried to consolidate effort on mailing list, Wiki around key concepts discussed ←
13:43:30 <smiles> ... these are the consolidated concepts
... these are the consolidated concepts ←
13:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts
Khalid Belhajjame: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts ←
13:44:17 <smiles> ... some came up recently (e.g. time) so not discussed much prior but considered important by WG
... some came up recently (e.g. time) so not discussed much prior but considered important by WG ←
13:44:43 <smiles> Khalid: some can be seen as "concepts", some "relations between concepts"
Khalid Belhajjame: some can be seen as "concepts", some "relations between concepts" ←
13:45:51 <smiles> Paolo: looking at Thing definition, we have definition, examples in journalism use cases plus others
Paolo Missier: looking at Thing definition, we have definition, examples in journalism use cases plus others ←
13:46:34 <tlebo> BTW, I'm tagging the wiki with categories http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:Discussed_at_F2F1
Timothy Lebo: BTW, I'm tagging the wiki with categories http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:Discussed_at_F2F1 ←
13:46:43 <smiles> ... followed by issues for discussion, these are from the WG mailing list/telecon discussions
... followed by issues for discussion, these are from the WG mailing list/telecon discussions ←
13:47:27 <smiles> ... we need to finalise definitions, evolve towards the deliverable document
... we need to finalise definitions, evolve towards the deliverable document ←
13:48:26 <smiles> pgroth: in consolidated concepts, there are links to concepts that have been discussed, but there are others identified in charter but not discussed (e.g. collection)
Paul Groth: in consolidated concepts, there are links to concepts that have been discussed, but there are others identified in charter but not discussed (e.g. collection) ←
13:49:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:49:09 <smiles> Paolo: also need to coordinate with access and query TF, to say how you obtain assertions in model
Paolo Missier: also need to coordinate with access and query TF, to say how you obtain assertions in model ←
13:50:13 <smiles> ... as a WG, we have agreed on some points (see slides/Wiki for exact wording of points)
... as a WG, we have agreed on some points (see slides/Wiki for exact wording of points) ←
13:50:41 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
13:51:50 <smiles> ... there are outstanding issues which need to be addressed
... there are outstanding issues which need to be addressed ←
13:52:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:52:33 <smiles> ... next steps: formalise prioritised provenance concepts, map to journalism example and extend to account for agreed concepts
... next steps: formalise prioritised provenance concepts, map to journalism example and extend to account for agreed concepts ←
13:53:04 <smiles> ... example comes with some sample queries, which we need to try to express these using our concepts
... example comes with some sample queries, which we need to try to express these using our concepts ←
13:53:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:53:29 <smiles> ... also need a primer in natural language for those outside WG
... also need a primer in natural language for those outside WG ←
13:53:38 <smiles> Deborah: primer also has examples of use?
Deborah McGuinness: primer also has examples of use? ←
13:53:40 <smiles> Paolo: yes
Paolo Missier: yes ←
13:54:07 <smiles> pgroth: there is a separate primer for all of WG, but this comes later
Paul Groth: there is a separate primer for all of WG, but this comes later ←
13:54:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:55:20 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
13:55:20 <smiles> Paolo: being able to express example queries and write primer are tests of model
Paolo Missier: being able to express example queries and write primer are tests of model ←
13:55:32 <smiles> pgroth: over dinner, ask us to come up with better names than PIL
Paul Groth: over dinner, ask us to come up with better names than PIL ←
13:55:48 <smiles> Luc: questions on Paolo presentation?
Luc Moreau: questions on Paolo presentation? ←
13:56:12 <smiles> Paulo: Was derivation dicsussed in a telecon?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Was derivation dicsussed in a telecon? ←
13:56:17 <smiles> Luc: yes
Luc Moreau: yes ←
13:56:26 <smiles> Paulo: do we need this concept at all?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: do we need this concept at all? ←
13:56:40 <tlebo> where is the page listing suggested names for PIL?
Timothy Lebo: where is the page listing suggested names for PIL? ←
13:56:49 <smiles> Luc: Derivation will be discussed in one of the F2F1 sessions
Luc Moreau: Derivation will be discussed in one of the F2F1 sessions ←
13:57:47 <smiles> Paulo: we will eventually need a "theory of provenance", founded on the model, combining formal semantics and model
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we will eventually need a "theory of provenance", founded on the model, combining formal semantics and model ←
13:58:05 <GK1> This talk of *a* theory of provenance makes me feel deeply uneasy. I think we need to put some vocabulary out there that developers can use.
Graham Klyne: This talk of *a* theory of provenance makes me feel deeply uneasy. I think we need to put some vocabulary out there that developers can use. ←
13:58:22 <GK1> Also, there may be different theories applicable to different situations.
Graham Klyne: Also, there may be different theories applicable to different situations. ←
13:59:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:59:04 <smiles> ... looking at current discussions, looks like provenance theory would be based partially on proof theory, part on assertion theory
... looking at current discussions, looks like provenance theory would be based partially on proof theory, part on assertion theory ←
14:00:42 <smiles> ... would like WG to connect model with proof theory, as part of activity on formal semantics
... would like WG to connect model with proof theory, as part of activity on formal semantics ←
14:01:33 <smiles> Luc: not yet discussed how formal semantics will be developed, happy for Paulo to put forward suggestions
Luc Moreau: not yet discussed how formal semantics will be developed, happy for Paulo to put forward suggestions ←
14:01:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:02:36 <GK1> This is a standardization working group, not an academic research project. It's fair to note that there may be existing theories, and point them out, but I would worry if our work is committed to one that isn't *widely* recognized - and I'm not aware that such a thing exists.
Graham Klyne: This is a standardization working group, not an academic research project. It's fair to note that there may be existing theories, and point them out, but I would worry if our work is committed to one that isn't *widely* recognized - and I'm not aware that such a thing exists. ←
14:02:41 <smiles> Paolo: see it as, if we can formalise model in, for example, proof theory, then this is welcome
Paolo Missier: see it as, if we can formalise model in, for example, proof theory, then this is welcome ←
14:04:07 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:04:22 <smiles> jcheney: waiting for informal definition process to converge before formalising
James Cheney: waiting for informal definition process to converge before formalising ←
14:05:20 <smiles> Luc: it is clear that at this table there are those keen to provide formal semantics; want to get started after F2F1, but focus now is on natural language definitions
Luc Moreau: it is clear that at this table there are those keen to provide formal semantics; want to get started after F2F1, but focus now is on natural language definitions ←
14:06:16 <Deborah> +1 to getting a formalization discussion going (and acknowledge that it follows at least some consensus on some core from the model task force)
Deborah McGuinness: +1 to getting a formalization discussion going (and acknowledge that it follows at least some consensus on some core from the model task force) ←
14:06:29 <smiles> Luc: we spent a long time talking about resources before we made some decisions - separate model from web architecture, then find some adequate definitions (thing, IPV of)
Luc Moreau: we spent a long time talking about resources before we made some decisions - separate model from web architecture, then find some adequate definitions (thing, IPV of) ←
14:06:52 <GK1> We may have stopped talking about "resources", but IFAICT, a "thing" is described as exactly what is called a "resource" in web architecture.
Graham Klyne: We may have stopped talking about "resources", but IFAICT, a "thing" is described as exactly what is called a "resource" in web architecture. ←
14:07:05 <smiles> Luc: now want open discussion on these two concepts: thing and IPVT
Luc Moreau: now want open discussion on these two concepts: thing and IPVT ←
14:07:17 <Deborah> now looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts#Thing
Deborah McGuinness: now looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts#Thing ←
14:08:30 <smiles> Paolo: we now have "stuff", "state of stuff", "thing", "properties"
Paolo Missier: we now have "stuff", "state of stuff", "thing", "properties" ←
14:09:19 <smiles> Paolo: thing as defined has identity, invariant properties, mutable properties
Paolo Missier: thing as defined has identity, invariant properties, mutable properties ←
14:09:39 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
14:10:33 <Deborah> do we also have a distinction between stuff and thing? i am not sure of the need for "stuff"
Deborah McGuinness: do we also have a distinction between stuff and thing? i am not sure of the need for "stuff" ←
14:11:01 <GK1> Paolo interesting example of ICE -> sculpture -> pool of water.
Graham Klyne: Paolo interesting example of ICE -> sculpture -> pool of water. ←
14:11:07 <smiles> ... talk about identity, and what changes mean a change in identity
... talk about identity, and what changes mean a change in identity ←
14:11:44 <smiles> ... invariance is relative to a context/scope
... invariance is relative to a context/scope ←
14:12:03 <GK1> I agree that invariance is relative.
Graham Klyne: I agree that invariance is relative. ←
14:12:08 <Paulo> q+
14:12:16 <Zakim> +zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←
14:12:32 <smiles> ... therefore, mutable is also relative
... therefore, mutable is also relative ←
14:12:39 <JimMcCusker> +1 that invariance is relative.
James McCusker: +1 that invariance is relative. ←
14:13:27 <smiles> Luc: Sandro came new to this; yesterday Paul and Luc discussed
Luc Moreau: Sandro came new to this; yesterday Paul and Luc discussed ←
14:13:36 <stain> +1 as well
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 as well ←
14:14:55 <stain> Deborah: I did previously suggest 'turtles all the way' so that there are no 'stuff' - but I guess the stuff is useful because it's the real thing behind a certain thing (which is just an interpretation)
Deborah McGuinness: I did previously suggest 'turtles all the way' so that there are no 'stuff' - but I guess the stuff is useful because it's the real thing behind a certain thing (which is just an interpretation) [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
14:14:57 <smiles> Sandro: first problem had was "thing", as assumed subject of provenance, but actually characterisation of that subject
Sandro Hawke: first problem had was "thing", as assumed subject of provenance, but actually characterisation of that subject ←
14:15:14 <stain> but it's still outside our vocabulary - we're not going to say anything about the stuff
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but it's still outside our vocabulary - we're not going to say anything about the stuff ←
14:16:12 <smiles> ... saw no place for variant properties
... saw no place for variant properties ←
14:16:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:17:24 <Luc> ack Paulo
Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←
14:17:28 <smiles> Khalid: from provenance point of view, only describing invariant properties
Khalid Belhajjame: from provenance point of view, only describing invariant properties ←
14:18:22 <smiles> Paulo: may be more abstract or concrete things (e.g. sculpture vs water)
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: may be more abstract or concrete things (e.g. sculpture vs water) ←
14:19:07 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
14:19:23 <GK1> I don't see more or less abstraction in sculpture vs water.
Graham Klyne: I don't see more or less abstraction in sculpture vs water. ←
14:19:31 <zednik> GK: I agree
Graham Klyne: I agree [ Scribe Assist by Stephan Zednik ] ←
14:20:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:20:59 <smiles> ... don't think variance (IVP of) and abstraction are the same thing
... don't think variance (IVP of) and abstraction are the same thing ←
14:21:15 <zednik> Q+
Stephan Zednik: Q+ ←
14:21:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:22:30 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
14:22:31 <smiles> Paolo: agreed that abstractions give different assertions of provenance of same thing, but all boils down to properties
Paolo Missier: agreed that abstractions give different assertions of provenance of same thing, but all boils down to properties ←
14:22:34 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:23:16 <Paulo> q+
14:23:34 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
14:23:48 <smiles> zednik: can get into morass when talking about abstraction; all we talk about are abstractions
Stephan Zednik: can get into morass when talking about abstraction; all we talk about are abstractions ←
14:23:58 <Deborah> +1 to not including more or less mutable or more less abstract
Deborah McGuinness: +1 to not including more or less mutable or more less abstract ←
14:24:16 <SamCoppens> q+
Sam Coppens: q+ ←
14:24:20 <Deborah> +q (deborah)
Deborah McGuinness: +q (deborah) ←
14:24:40 <GK1> @zednik: +1. I'm thinking that this talk of "invariance" is really constraining to a context, such that provenance assertions we can make *are* invariant within that context.
Graham Klyne: @zednik: +1. I'm thinking that this talk of "invariance" is really constraining to a context, such that provenance assertions we can make *are* invariant within that context. ←
14:25:07 <zednik> @GK: I completely agree
Stephan Zednik: @GK: I completely agree ←
14:25:13 <smiles> Paolo: need to know scope to know what invariance is relative to
Paolo Missier: need to know scope to know what invariance is relative to ←
14:25:27 <stain> @Paolo: Very good description
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Paolo: Very good description ←
14:25:33 <smiles> smiles: the identity of the thing could be the scope
Simon Miles: the identity of the thing could be the scope ←
14:25:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:25:59 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
14:27:24 <stain> you can have abstract properties such as "the materials that make out the shape of a shirt"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: you can have abstract properties such as "the materials that make out the shape of a shirt" ←
14:27:33 <stain> it doesn't have to be a measurement
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it doesn't have to be a measurement ←
14:27:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:28:28 <Luc> ack paulo
Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←
14:29:00 <smiles> Paulo: by abstract/concrete, see thing as concept over which reason, provenance as metadata to concept
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: by abstract/concrete, see thing as concept over which reason, provenance as metadata to concept ←
14:29:02 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
14:29:10 <smiles> Luc: WG agreed that this is an assertion language
Luc Moreau: WG agreed that this is an assertion language ←
14:29:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:29:26 <JimMcCusker> +q
James McCusker: +q ←
14:29:47 <smiles> Paulo: it is "description of thing" we care about
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: it is "description of thing" we care about ←
14:29:50 <Luc> ack SamCoppens
Luc Moreau: ack SamCoppens ←
14:30:33 <smiles> SamCoppens: need to distinguish information resource and physical resource
Sam Coppens: need to distinguish information resource and physical resource ←
14:31:04 <smiles> Luc: do not use the word "resource"
Luc Moreau: do not use the word "resource" ←
14:31:21 <Luc> ack deborah
Luc Moreau: ack deborah ←
14:31:28 <Luc> ack (deborah)
Luc Moreau: ack (deborah) ←
14:31:35 <zednik> @deborah: please speak louder
Stephan Zednik: @deborah: please speak louder ←
14:32:09 <GK1> @samcoppens: I don't think distinguishing physical and info resources is helpful
Graham Klyne: @samcoppens: I don't think distinguishing physical and info resources is helpful ←
14:32:13 <smiles> Deborah: don't think "stuff" is a good thing to introduce
Deborah McGuinness: don't think "stuff" is a good thing to introduce ←
14:32:23 <Paulo> q+
14:32:38 <smiles> ... also not sure need to distinguish invariant and variant
... also not sure need to distinguish invariant and variant ←
14:33:08 <smiles> Luc: what is meant by not using "stuff"?
Luc Moreau: what is meant by not using "stuff"? ←
14:34:35 <smiles> Luc: "thing" is what is in assertion language, "stuff" is what it refers to in the world
Luc Moreau: "thing" is what is in assertion language, "stuff" is what it refers to in the world ←
14:34:37 <GK1> Re. Deborah's comment, I think provenance is (mainly) intended to describe instances, not classes
Graham Klyne: Re. Deborah's comment, I think provenance is (mainly) intended to describe instances, not classes ←
14:35:26 <GK1> (I think that's part of what the "in the past" discussion is trying to nail.)
Graham Klyne: (I think that's part of what the "in the past" discussion is trying to nail.) ←
14:35:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:36:19 <sandro> deb: PML used "IdentifiedThing"
Deborah McGuinness: PML used "IdentifiedThing" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:36:42 <smiles> Deborah: in PML, stuff is merely the instance of the IdentifiedThing
Deborah McGuinness: in PML, stuff is merely the instance of the IdentifiedThing ←
14:37:34 <smiles> Luc: it is not just stuff identified, but state of stuff
Luc Moreau: it is not just stuff identified, but state of stuff ←
14:37:56 <sandro> ack IlkayAltintas
Sandro Hawke: ack IlkayAltintas ←
14:37:56 <Paolo> Q?
Paolo Missier: Q? ←
14:37:58 <zednik> thing is state of stuff?
Stephan Zednik: thing is state of stuff? ←
14:38:03 <Paolo> Q?
Paolo Missier: Q? ←
14:38:18 <zednik> cannot hear current speaker
Stephan Zednik: cannot hear current speaker ←
14:38:21 <JimMcCusker> I would argue that in what we're talking about, thing is an observation of stuff.
James McCusker: I would argue that in what we're talking about, thing is an observation of stuff. ←
14:38:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:38:56 <smiles> Ilkay: if when you change some property of a thing and it becomes a different thing, then it is an invariant property
Ilkay Altintas: if when you change some property of a thing and it becomes a different thing, then it is an invariant property ←
14:39:03 <zednik> still cannot follow speaker
Stephan Zednik: still cannot follow speaker ←
14:39:05 <GK1> FWIW, in Web Arch, a "resource" is something that *can be* identified. To the extent that "state of stuff" can be identified, it's also a resource in that sense.
Graham Klyne: FWIW, in Web Arch, a "resource" is something that *can be* identified. To the extent that "state of stuff" can be identified, it's also a resource in that sense. ←
14:39:18 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
14:39:23 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
14:39:31 <sandro> ack zednik
Sandro Hawke: ack zednik ←
14:40:14 <smiles> zednik: distinction between abstract and concrete not important or strong, what matters is what we can assert about
Stephan Zednik: distinction between abstract and concrete not important or strong, what matters is what we can assert about ←
14:40:27 <GK1> @zednik: +1
Graham Klyne: @zednik: +1 ←
14:40:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:41:14 <stain> @zednik: +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @zednik: +1 ←
14:41:16 <pgroth> close the queue
Paul Groth: close the queue ←
14:41:18 <Luc> ack JimMcCusker
Luc Moreau: ack JimMcCusker ←
14:41:31 <pgroth> zakim, close the queue
Paul Groth: zakim, close the queue ←
14:41:31 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed ←
14:41:53 <sandro> "observation" for "thing"
Sandro Hawke: "observation" for "thing" ←
14:42:08 <smiles> JimMcCusker: if a thing is a set of properties observed/asserted, then call invariant properties "observations"
James McCusker: if a thing is a set of properties observed/asserted, then call invariant properties "observations" ←
14:42:32 <sandro> luc: but some things are not observed, thus "characterization".
Luc Moreau: but some things are not observed, thus "characterization". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:42:36 <smiles> Luc: but also want to talk about things not observer
Luc Moreau: but also want to talk about things not observer ←
14:42:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:42:40 <tlebo> then the subjects of two disparate "observations" can or cannot be inferred to be identical.
Timothy Lebo: then the subjects of two disparate "observations" can or cannot be inferred to be identical. ←
14:42:42 <GK1> I'm not fully convionced by ovservations and things. Consider a stock ticker: a reasonable provenance asseryion is that it's 15 minutes later than the "real" market data, IMO.
Graham Klyne: I'm not fully convionced by ovservations and things. Consider a stock ticker: a reasonable provenance asseryion is that it's 15 minutes later than the "real" market data, IMO. ←
14:42:43 <sandro> (I wonder about "fingerprint")
Sandro Hawke: (I wonder about "fingerprint") ←
14:43:07 <Luc> ack Paulo
Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←
14:43:12 <GK1> That's an invariant that survives any single observation.
Graham Klyne: That's an invariant that survives any single observation. ←
14:43:14 <tlebo> fingerprint fits well with Jim's "observation".
Timothy Lebo: fingerprint fits well with Jim's "observation". ←
14:44:09 <stain> the asserter might not just observe, also interpret, reason and.. guess
Stian Soiland-Reyes: the asserter might not just observe, also interpret, reason and.. guess ←
14:44:37 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:44:55 <smiles> Paulo: in response to Deborah, distinction between invariant and variant is often of interest; for example, in versions what we care about is what has changed versus the stable identity
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: in response to Deborah, distinction between invariant and variant is often of interest; for example, in versions what we care about is what has changed versus the stable identity ←
14:45:07 <JimMcCusker> True. I guess "Assertion" would be the most general, with a particular plan/recipe/whatever that describes how the assertion is being made.
James McCusker: True. I guess "Assertion" would be the most general, with a particular plan/recipe/whatever that describes how the assertion is being made. ←
14:45:51 <sandro> Paulo: Provenance implies continuity and observation
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Provenance implies continuity and observation [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:46:10 <sandro> s/paulo/paolo/
14:46:42 <smiles> Paolo: more important that observed change than that change happened, and infer that process occurred to make that change
Paolo Missier: more important that observed change than that change happened, and infer that process occurred to make that change ←
14:46:47 <sandro> paolo: process is also a key to provenance
Paolo Missier: process is also a key to provenance [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:46:59 <JimMcCusker> An assertion that has a creator who has the observer role is considered an observation.
James McCusker: An assertion that has a creator who has the observer role is considered an observation. ←
14:47:57 <sandro> (I'm thinking it's not about mutablity, but about chaining from one snapshot to the next.)
Sandro Hawke: (I'm thinking it's not about mutablity, but about chaining from one snapshot to the next.) ←
14:48:06 <smiles> Luc: close this session for a break
Luc Moreau: close this session for a break ←
14:48:07 <pgroth> hi all were breaking 15 minutes
Paul Groth: hi all were breaking 15 minutes ←
14:48:12 <sandro> restart at 11:05
Sandro Hawke: restart at 11:05 ←
<luc> Topic: Session 2: Model Task Force
Summary: Instead of the word "stuff", it was agreed that entity would be more appropriate. A new working definition of pil:thing was put forward by Jim McCusker. While it was not formally approved by the group, it felt that it better represented the meaning we wanted to ascribe to pil:thing. We also considered alternative terms for pil:thing. A placeholder word was adopted, BOB, but in discussion, it was frequent for group members to refer to Entity State.
<luc> Summary: Instead of the word "stuff", it was agreed that entity would be more appropriate. A new working definition of pil:thing was put forward by Jim McCusker. While it was not formally approved by the group, it felt that it better represented the meaning we wanted to ascribe to pil:thing. We also considered alternative terms for pil:thing. A placeholder word was adopted, BOB, but in discussion, it was frequent for group members to refer to Entity State.
15:06:04 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
15:06:30 <ericstephan> scribe: ericstephan
(No events recorded for 18 minutes)
(Scribe set to Eric Stephan)
15:06:59 <pgroth> zakim, open the queue
Paul Groth: zakim, open the queue ←
15:06:59 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is open
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is open ←
15:07:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:07:29 <ericstephan> Paul - talk about some of the other concepts
Paul - talk about some of the other concepts ←
15:08:38 <ericstephan> Luc - we can raise issues but we also need to be pragmatic in terms of our time. Agreeing to disagree.
Luc - we can raise issues but we also need to be pragmatic in terms of our time. Agreeing to disagree. ←
15:09:58 <sandro> ericstephan, us ":" after person's name
Sandro Hawke: ericstephan, us ":" after person's name ←
15:10:09 <ericstephan> Jim - If we say what we are calling a thing, is an observation or assertion (or composite of assertions). It is an information artifact about a thing in the world. The assertion is something that is invariant.
Jim - If we say what we are calling a thing, is an observation or assertion (or composite of assertions). It is an information artifact about a thing in the world. The assertion is something that is invariant. ←
15:11:16 <Deborah> ? shall we mention states in this discussion?
Deborah McGuinness: ? shall we mention states in this discussion? ←
15:11:31 <ericstephan> Jim - the state of the thing in the world changes through time. If we assume that any worldly thing is variant and the assertion is invariant. We can make the distinction between the two concepts
Jim - the state of the thing in the world changes through time. If we assume that any worldly thing is variant and the assertion is invariant. We can make the distinction between the two concepts ←
15:12:53 <ericstephan> PaulG: Suggest we propose definitions like Jim's and modify them.
Paul Groth: Suggest we propose definitions like Jim's and modify them. ←
15:14:27 <Paolo> Looks like we are going to project the irc window here so we are all on the same page regardless of location
Paolo Missier: Looks like we are going to project the irc window here so we are all on the same page regardless of location ←
15:15:50 <Luc> A thing is an information artifact about a subject in the world.
Luc Moreau: A thing is an information artifact about a subject in the world. ←
15:16:04 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptThing
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptThing ←
15:16:04 <smiles> smiles: "things" represent real-world stuffs and have properties modeling aspects of stuff states. Things have: an identity, a set of invariant (== immutable) properties, a set of mutable properties
Simon Miles: "things" represent real-world stuffs and have properties modeling aspects of stuff states. Things have: an identity, a set of invariant (== immutable) properties, a set of mutable properties [ Scribe Assist by Simon Miles ] ←
15:16:20 <Paolo> For reference, above is the current proposal for thing
Paolo Missier: For reference, above is the current proposal for thing ←
15:17:21 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:17:32 <Paolo> q-
Paolo Missier: q- ←
15:17:34 <GK1> It seems to me that the "invariance" is captured by saying that we can make certain enduring assertions about it.
Graham Klyne: It seems to me that the "invariance" is captured by saying that we can make certain enduring assertions about it. ←
15:17:47 <tlebo> Observer, ObservationalContext, SubjectOfObservation ?
Timothy Lebo: Observer, ObservationalContext, SubjectOfObservation ? ←
15:17:52 <ericstephan> JimMc: The assertion describes the state as asserted by a particular entity.
James McCusker: The assertion describes the state as asserted by a particular entity. ←
15:18:25 <zednik> the characterization of a thing in a provenance assertion is invariant for the scope of the provenance assertion
Stephan Zednik: the characterization of a thing in a provenance assertion is invariant for the scope of the provenance assertion ←
15:18:32 <ericstephan> JimMc: The subject that is being described is always variant. The description stays the same at a particular point by a particular entity.
James McCusker: The subject that is being described is always variant. The description stays the same at a particular point by a particular entity. ←
15:19:11 <ericstephan> Tim: Descriptions of subjects do not exist outside an observation?
Timothy Lebo: Descriptions of subjects do not exist outside an observation? ←
15:19:51 <ericstephan> Luc: Its in the modeling that you talk about particular properties
Luc Moreau: Its in the modeling that you talk about particular properties ←
15:20:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:20:05 <tlebo> Observations renamed to Descriptions.
Timothy Lebo: Observations renamed to Descriptions. ←
15:20:15 <tlebo> Subjects are the things described by Descriptions.
Timothy Lebo: Subjects are the things described by Descriptions. ←
15:20:46 <ericstephan> Luc: I'd like to come back to the word description. When we had the word thing. the process execution used things. If you replace the word thing by description...
Luc Moreau: I'd like to come back to the word description. When we had the word thing. the process execution used things. If you replace the word thing by description... ←
15:21:35 <zednik> What about Characterization?
Stephan Zednik: What about Characterization? ←
15:22:05 <ericstephan> Paul - it sounds like you need to do all of this in terms of description. Something in the world describes a particular state.
Paul - it sounds like you need to do all of this in terms of description. Something in the world describes a particular state. ←
15:22:11 <tlebo> State of a Subject is captured within its Description.
Timothy Lebo: State of a Subject is captured within its Description. ←
15:23:40 <ericstephan> Satya: How do you describe the characteristics of a process?
Satya Sahoo: How do you describe the characteristics of a process? ←
15:24:04 <ericstephan> JimMc: A process is a kind of thing therefore it is an entity in the world.
James McCusker: A process is a kind of thing therefore it is an entity in the world. ←
15:24:58 <ericstephan> Satya: need to Distinguish between Occurrence and Continual
Satya Sahoo: need to Distinguish between Occurrence and Continual ←
15:25:04 <GK1> Q+ to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion. If so, I think description as observation doesn't quite work.
Graham Klyne: Q+ to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion. If so, I think description as observation doesn't quite work. ←
15:25:23 <GK1> I think Satya is talking about "Occurrent" vs "continuant"
Graham Klyne: I think Satya is talking about "Occurrent" vs "continuant" ←
15:25:25 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
15:25:47 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
15:26:30 <ericstephan> PaulG: Rephrased generation describes a subject in the world described by a description (sorry if I munged this - Eric)
Paul Groth: Rephrased generation describes a subject in the world described by a description (sorry if I munged this - Eric) ←
15:26:30 <Luc> A Description is an information artifact about a subject in the world. A Description is an invariant assertion, made at a particular point. (A Description could be made by guessing, lying, observing, ...) A Description is an Assertion about a subject that is variant in the world. A Description consists of invariant characteristics.
Luc Moreau: A Description is an information artifact about a subject in the world. A Description is an invariant assertion, made at a particular point. (A Description could be made by guessing, lying, observing, ...) A Description is an Assertion about a subject that is variant in the world. A Description consists of invariant characteristics. ←
15:26:36 <Deborah> +q
Deborah McGuinness: +q ←
15:27:03 <sandro> GK just type it
Sandro Hawke: GK just type it ←
15:27:04 <Paulo> q+
15:27:08 <GK1> Iack GK1
Graham Klyne: Iack GK1 ←
15:27:14 <GK1> ack GK1
Graham Klyne: ack GK1 ←
15:27:26 <GK1> My question is in the log, shoul;d show if you ack me
Graham Klyne: My question is in the log, shoul;d show if you ack me ←
15:27:26 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
15:27:27 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion. If so, I think description as observation doesn't
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if my example of a 15 minute delayed stock ticker would be regarded as a reasonable provenance assertion. If so, I think description as observation doesn't ←
15:27:29 <Zakim> ... quite work.
Zakim IRC Bot: ... quite work. ←
15:27:53 <ericstephan> Paulo: Problem why we moved from observation to description?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Problem why we moved from observation to description? ←
15:27:53 <pgroth> ack paolo
Paul Groth: ack paolo ←
15:28:04 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
15:28:05 <Paolo> q-
Paolo Missier: q- ←
15:28:29 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
15:28:32 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
15:28:40 <pgroth> ack qweb
Paul Groth: ack qweb ←
15:29:26 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
15:29:31 <pgroth> ack Paulo
Paul Groth: ack Paulo ←
15:29:36 <ericstephan> Deborah: wanted to bring up the lack of provenance in state. Describing something in a moment. It could be a long period of time. Were we working with a state centric view but not discussing it?
Deborah McGuinness: wanted to bring up the lack of provenance in state. Describing something in a moment. It could be a long period of time. Were we working with a state centric view but not discussing it? ←
15:30:10 <Deborah> and further that possibly this new way of discussing it with descriptions might work
Deborah McGuinness: and further that possibly this new way of discussing it with descriptions might work ←
15:30:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:30:57 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:31:02 <ericstephan> Paulo da Silva: Adding Subject Assertion to Thing Description.
Paulo da Silva: Adding Subject Assertion to Thing Description. ←
15:31:39 <pgroth> ack khal
Paul Groth: ack khal ←
15:31:40 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
15:31:58 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←
15:32:14 <ericstephan> Luc: Revised definitions on the wiki
Luc Moreau: Revised definitions on the wiki ←
15:32:16 <satya> Is description a form of narration? (derived from Luc's defintion)
Satya Sahoo: Is description a form of narration? (derived from Luc's defintion) ←
15:32:23 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
15:32:46 <ericstephan> SimonM: Not clear about the later definition and what was being defined by Jim.
Simon Miles: Not clear about the later definition and what was being defined by Jim. ←
15:33:00 <ericstephan> JimMc: Description is always invarient
James McCusker: Description is always invarient ←
15:33:41 <ericstephan> JimMc: Just because the description is invariant it doesn't mean the entire entity is invariant
James McCusker: Just because the description is invariant it doesn't mean the entire entity is invariant ←
15:33:48 <GK1> @jimmc: Don't we want to say the "Description" has enduring truth?
Graham Klyne: @jimmc: Don't we want to say the "Description" has enduring truth? ←
15:34:39 <GK1> ... (for "Description" as a provenance assertion)
Graham Klyne: ... (for "Description" as a provenance assertion) ←
15:34:50 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
15:35:09 <ericstephan> Sandro: Put in a little vote for observation, description isn't bad but has many different types of meanings.
Sandro Hawke: Put in a little vote for observation, description isn't bad but has many different types of meanings. ←
15:35:43 <zednik> Q+ observation has generally agreed upon semantics in science
Stephan Zednik: Q+ observation has generally agreed upon semantics in science ←
15:35:54 <ericstephan> Luc: Can you have an observation that is not observed?
Luc Moreau: Can you have an observation that is not observed? ←
15:36:19 <Paolo> I like observation as it implies it is relative - to an observer. Of which there can be multiple
Paolo Missier: I like observation as it implies it is relative - to an observer. Of which there can be multiple ←
15:36:22 <zednik> Q+ to ask Observation has defined semantics in science
Stephan Zednik: Q+ to ask Observation has defined semantics in science ←
15:36:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:36:42 <pgroth> ack san
Paul Groth: ack san ←
15:37:04 <ericstephan> Paulo: make note of what Graham is trying to say.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: make note of what Graham is trying to say. ←
15:37:15 <tlebo> (paolo - if you reload http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions the image will be smaller)
Timothy Lebo: (paolo - if you reload http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions the image will be smaller) ←
15:37:29 <GK1> yes .. the perspective/context
Graham Klyne: yes .. the perspective/context ←
15:37:31 <ericstephan> JimMc: its a claim not an enduring truth
James McCusker: its a claim not an enduring truth ←
15:37:42 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:37:58 <GK1> OK "truth" is problematic
Graham Klyne: OK "truth" is problematic ←
15:37:59 <ericstephan> JimMc: Its a piece of information that is enduring, but not sure about the truth bit.
James McCusker: Its a piece of information that is enduring, but not sure about the truth bit. ←
15:38:26 <Deborah> +1 to not using the word truth
Deborah McGuinness: +1 to not using the word truth ←
15:38:28 <GK1> The nature is that the turth or otherwise of the claim doesn't change
Graham Klyne: The nature is that the turth or otherwise of the claim doesn't change ←
15:38:37 <zednik> +1 to not using truth
Stephan Zednik: +1 to not using truth ←
15:38:42 <sandro> "invariant claim" maybe
Sandro Hawke: "invariant claim" maybe ←
15:38:49 <pgroth> ack paolo
Paul Groth: ack paolo ←
15:38:54 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
15:38:54 <Zakim> zednik, you wanted to ask Observation has defined semantics in science
Zakim IRC Bot: zednik, you wanted to ask Observation has defined semantics in science ←
15:38:56 <zednik> an act of observing a property or phenomenon, with the goal of producing an estimate of the value of the property. A specialized event whose result is a data value.
Stephan Zednik: an act of observing a property or phenomenon, with the goal of producing an estimate of the value of the property. A specialized event whose result is a data value. ←
15:39:12 <ericstephan> StephanZ: Within science observation has a different definition than the way we are using it.
Stephan Zednik: Within science observation has a different definition than the way we are using it. ←
15:39:18 <Deborah> +1 to not using the word observation
Deborah McGuinness: +1 to not using the word observation ←
15:39:19 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:39:29 <ericstephan> StephanZ: Avoid the term observation.
Stephan Zednik: Avoid the term observation. ←
15:39:46 <zednik> Q+ to ask for alternate to Thing/Description
Stephan Zednik: Q+ to ask for alternate to Thing/Description ←
15:40:12 <ericstephan> PaulG: It is reasonable to replace the verbage, who has the most votes for each term on the whiteboard?
Paul Groth: It is reasonable to replace the verbage, who has the most votes for each term on the whiteboard? ←
15:41:12 <sandro> webcam folks, working? reload?
Sandro Hawke: webcam folks, working? reload? ←
15:41:21 <GK1> WebCam OK
Graham Klyne: WebCam OK ←
15:41:27 <ericstephan> Vote on stuff, subject thing, entity, and something in the world. Which one is your favorite?
Vote on stuff, subject thing, entity, and something in the world. Which one is your favorite? ←
15:41:53 <zednik> webcam is back up for me
Stephan Zednik: webcam is back up for me ←
15:41:59 <GK1> ARe we voting on terms to appear in the actual spec?
Graham Klyne: ARe we voting on terms to appear in the actual spec? ←
15:42:02 <stain> Are we using AV or first past the post?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Are we using AV or first past the post? ←
15:42:44 <stain> +1 stuff
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 stuff ←
15:43:04 <stain> I'm confused by te process.. can't see the hands and the video is out of sync
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I'm confused by te process.. can't see the hands and the video is out of sync ←
15:43:06 <GK1> vote stuff:-1, thing:0, entity:0, somethinginworld:-1,subject:OK,object:0
Graham Klyne: vote stuff:-1, thing:0, entity:0, somethinginworld:-1,subject:OK,object:0 ←
15:43:19 <zednik> +1 for entity
Stephan Zednik: +1 for entity ←
15:43:56 <stain> vote stuff:-1 thing:+1 entity:+1 somethingintheworld:-1 subject:1 object: 0
Stian Soiland-Reyes: vote stuff:-1 thing:+1 entity:+1 somethingintheworld:-1 subject:1 object: 0 ←
15:43:57 <Paolo> @stian just having fun
Paolo Missier: @stian just having fun ←
15:44:15 <ericstephan> PaulG: Restart vote rejection is the goal
Paul Groth: Restart vote rejection is the goal ←
15:44:15 <GK1> Webcam is a bit high on whiteboard, can't see bottom
Graham Klyne: Webcam is a bit high on whiteboard, can't see bottom ←
15:44:33 <ericstephan> Stuff rejected
Stuff rejected ←
15:44:37 <GK1> for Resource:+1
Graham Klyne: for Resource:+1 ←
15:44:40 <GK1> :)
Graham Klyne: :) ←
15:44:56 <ericstephan> Something in the world rejected
Something in the world rejected ←
15:45:04 <ericstephan> object and resource rejected
object and resource rejected ←
15:45:12 <tlebo> Subject ~= Thing ~= Entity
Timothy Lebo: Subject ~= Thing ~= Entity ←
15:45:23 <Paolo> @GK you are then /rejecting/ resource, right?
Paolo Missier: @GK you are then /rejecting/ resource, right? ←
15:45:53 <GK1> No, vote FOR. In the final analysis, I think what we want to capture is exactly the notion of a web resource.
Graham Klyne: No, vote FOR. In the final analysis, I think what we want to capture is exactly the notion of a web resource. ←
15:46:03 <Deborah> yes - rejecting Stuff, something in the world, object, and resource
Deborah McGuinness: yes - rejecting Stuff, something in the world, object, and resource ←
15:46:28 <stain> Derivation as subject and objet
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Derivation as subject and objet ←
15:46:32 <stain> has
Stian Soiland-Reyes: has ←
15:46:32 <ericstephan> Satya: Subject can be confusing from RDF perspective
Satya Sahoo: Subject can be confusing from RDF perspective ←
15:46:46 <GK1> Subject and Object are confusing terms in RDF, but it's what we're stuck with.
Graham Klyne: Subject and Object are confusing terms in RDF, but it's what we're stuck with. ←
15:47:05 <stain> luckily "stuff" is just as blurry everywhere else it's used!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: luckily "stuff" is just as blurry everywhere else it's used! ←
15:47:41 <ericstephan> Sandro: Suggest item
Sandro Hawke: Suggest item ←
15:48:00 <zednik> for Item: -1
Stephan Zednik: for Item: -1 ←
15:49:18 <ericstephan> PaulG: We already made this decision: we cannot use resource.
Paul Groth: We already made this decision: we cannot use resource. ←
15:49:36 <Deborah> remaining terms - subject, thing, entity (and possibly item)
Deborah McGuinness: remaining terms - subject, thing, entity (and possibly item) ←
15:49:37 <ericstephan> Sandro: We need to be clear on why we rejected resource
Sandro Hawke: We need to be clear on why we rejected resource ←
15:49:50 <GK1> Is this terminology fixed for the final spec? I'm happy to continue for now.
Graham Klyne: Is this terminology fixed for the final spec? I'm happy to continue for now. ←
15:50:31 <GK1> There's no real discussion about *what* a *web resource* is -- the main discussion is about distinguishing different kinds of resource.
Graham Klyne: There's no real discussion about *what* a *web resource* is -- the main discussion is about distinguishing different kinds of resource. ←
15:50:54 <Paolo> @gk not final, but we are trying to replace "stuff" and "thing" for the purpose of the next draft
Paolo Missier: @gk not final, but we are trying to replace "stuff" and "thing" for the purpose of the next draft ←
15:51:07 <ericstephan> Deborah: Entity Decently defined in some knowledge sources.
Deborah McGuinness: Entity Decently defined in some knowledge sources. ←
15:51:18 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
15:51:34 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
15:51:35 <pgroth> ack sandro
Paul Groth: ack sandro ←
15:52:08 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:52:12 <pgroth> ack telco
Paul Groth: ack telco ←
15:52:22 <ericstephan> Tim: Of the three, thing and entity are not oriented toward being observed. We should give something of what we are talking about.
Timothy Lebo: Of the three, thing and entity are not oriented toward being observed. We should give something of what we are talking about. ←
15:52:29 <Zakim> +[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←
15:52:32 <GK1> @paolo - I'm content to continue for now with ¬resource, but I'd like to keep an option to revisit later
Graham Klyne: @paolo - I'm content to continue for now with ¬resource, but I'd like to keep an option to revisit later ←
15:52:54 <ericstephan> PaulG: Can we just take a vote now?
Paul Groth: Can we just take a vote now? ←
15:53:25 <ericstephan> Sandro: Unless anyone strongly rejects it may be reasonable to vote.
Sandro Hawke: Unless anyone strongly rejects it may be reasonable to vote. ←
15:53:55 <ericstephan> JamesC: Just to put it in context, this vote is for the next draft
James Cheney: Just to put it in context, this vote is for the next draft ←
15:54:41 <pgroth> straw poll - choice between subject, thing and entity
Paul Groth: straw poll - choice between subject, thing and entity ←
15:54:50 <GK1> (IETF does "humming")
Graham Klyne: (IETF does "humming") ←
15:55:51 <pgroth> vote for subject:
Paul Groth: vote for subject: ←
15:55:52 <GK1> for subject:+1 (of the three)
Graham Klyne: for subject:+1 (of the three) ←
15:55:52 <tlebo> +1 for subject
Timothy Lebo: +1 for subject ←
15:56:01 <Deborah> Deborah votes for entity
Deborah McGuinness: Deborah votes for entity ←
15:56:02 <sandro> entity, because of rdf:subject
Sandro Hawke: entity, because of rdf:subject ←
15:56:09 <satya> entity
Satya Sahoo: entity ←
15:56:10 <stain> +1 for entity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 for entity ←
15:56:14 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:56:26 <pgroth> vote for subject
Paul Groth: vote for subject ←
15:56:28 <ericstephan> PaulG: Reset
Paul Groth: Reset ←
15:56:29 <Paulo> +1
15:56:30 <satya> -1
Satya Sahoo: -1 ←
15:56:31 <GK1> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:56:36 <tlebo> +1 for subject
Timothy Lebo: +1 for subject ←
15:56:37 <StephenCresswell> +1 for subject
Stephen Cresswell: +1 for subject ←
15:56:38 <IlkayAltintas> -1
Ilkay Altintas: -1 ←
15:57:06 <pgroth> All those in favor of subject
Paul Groth: All those in favor of subject ←
15:57:06 <ericstephan> (Reset again)
(Reset again) ←
15:57:08 <satya> -1
Satya Sahoo: -1 ←
15:57:09 <GK1> for subject:+1
Graham Klyne: for subject:+1 ←
15:57:22 <tlebo> +1 for subject
Timothy Lebo: +1 for subject ←
15:57:25 <Paulo> +1
15:57:26 <StephenCresswell> +1
Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←
15:57:37 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:57:57 <sandro> JimMc: +1 subject
James McCusker: +1 subject [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:58:12 <pgroth> All those in favor of Thing
Paul Groth: All those in favor of Thing ←
15:58:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:58:35 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:58:36 <Vinh> +1
Vinh Nguyen: +1 ←
15:58:36 <Deborah> Deborah +1 for entity
Deborah McGuinness: Deborah +1 for entity ←
15:58:36 <ericstephan> +1
+1 ←
15:58:36 <pgroth> All those in favor of Entity
Paul Groth: All those in favor of Entity ←
15:58:36 <RyanGolden> +1
Ryan Golden: +1 ←
15:58:37 <sandro> +1 entity
Sandro Hawke: +1 entity ←
15:58:37 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:58:37 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:58:39 <zednik> +1 for entity
Stephan Zednik: +1 for entity ←
15:58:41 <IlkayAltintas> +1
Ilkay Altintas: +1 ←
15:58:43 <jcheney> +1 entity
James Cheney: +1 entity ←
15:58:45 <SamCoppens> +1 for entity
Sam Coppens: +1 for entity ←
15:58:53 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:58:53 <sandro> No one was in favor of THING. khalidbelhajjame was about ENTITY
Sandro Hawke: No one was in favor of THING. khalidbelhajjame was about ENTITY ←
15:58:54 <Vinh> +1
Vinh Nguyen: +1 ←
15:59:04 <ericstephan> Deborah: Khalid and Satya voted for Entity
Deborah McGuinness: Khalid and Satya voted for Entity ←
15:59:26 <pgroth> decision entity
Paul Groth: decision entity ←
15:59:26 <sandro> PROPOSED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff"....
PROPOSED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff".... ←
15:59:38 <Deborah> Second sandro's proposal
Deborah McGuinness: Second sandro's proposal ←
15:59:40 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:59:40 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:59:41 <ericstephan> +1
+1 ←
15:59:41 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:59:42 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:59:42 <Deborah> +1
Deborah McGuinness: +1 ←
15:59:43 <Vinh> +1
Vinh Nguyen: +1 ←
15:59:43 <RyanGolden> +1
Ryan Golden: +1 ←
15:59:44 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:59:46 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
15:59:47 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:59:50 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:59:58 <IlkayAltintas> +1
Ilkay Altintas: +1 ←
15:59:58 <GK1> 0
Graham Klyne: 0 ←
15:59:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:59:59 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:00:09 <sandro> RESOLVED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff"....
RESOLVED: For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff".... ←
16:00:09 <stain> does it have to be <!--ENTITY caps?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: does it have to be <!--ENTITY caps? ←
16:00:17 <sandro> NOT caps!
Sandro Hawke: NOT caps! ←
16:00:27 <ericstephan> PaulG: Vote for new names for Thing
Paul Groth: Vote for new names for Thing ←
16:01:54 <GK1> for Snapshot:-1, Fingerprint:-1
Graham Klyne: for Snapshot:-1, Fingerprint:-1 ←
16:02:36 <GK1> I need to break off, have (infrequent) train to catch.
Graham Klyne: I need to break off, have (infrequent) train to catch. ←
16:03:12 <pgroth> thanks GK
Paul Groth: thanks GK ←
16:03:24 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
16:03:44 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
16:04:18 <stain> View, Perspective, Interpretation
Stian Soiland-Reyes: View, Perspective, Interpretation ←
16:05:02 <zednik> lost, call - calling back in
Stephan Zednik: lost, call - calling back in ←
16:05:50 <Zakim> +zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←
16:05:56 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
16:06:23 <Zakim> +zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←
16:07:15 <ericstephan> Luc: If you go back to original definition of thing. We were identifying the state not the stuff. In the same token, the "thing" has an identity, but not an entity in the world.
Luc Moreau: If you go back to original definition of thing. We were identifying the state not the stuff. In the same token, the "thing" has an identity, but not an entity in the world. ←
16:07:29 <stain> exactly!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: exactly! ←
16:07:39 <stain> when we give something an identity, we are implying a 'thing'
Stian Soiland-Reyes: when we give something an identity, we are implying a 'thing' ←
16:07:55 <stain> hence an interpretation/perspective/selection of the entity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: hence an interpretation/perspective/selection of the entity ←
16:08:18 <ericstephan> JimMc: The point of this is from the set of entitites you should be able to identify which entity you are talking about.
James McCusker: The point of this is from the set of entitites you should be able to identify which entity you are talking about. ←
16:10:10 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:10:14 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:10:35 <tlebo> (my vote no): characterize: describe the distinctive nature or features of
Timothy Lebo: (my vote no): characterize: describe the distinctive nature or features of ←
16:10:52 <ericstephan> PaulG: We will do the speaker queue and then go through the rejections.
Paul Groth: We will do the speaker queue and then go through the rejections. ←
16:11:14 <satya> q+ for James point
Satya Sahoo: q+ for James point ←
16:11:25 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:11:46 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
16:11:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:12:21 <tlebo> when we author OWL axioms, the owl:Class is the pil:Entity that we are creating pil:Descriptions of ?
Timothy Lebo: when we author OWL axioms, the owl:Class is the pil:Entity that we are creating pil:Descriptions of ? ←
16:12:28 <tlebo> ... pil: Descriptions
Timothy Lebo: ... pil: Descriptions ←
16:12:33 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:12:35 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
16:13:15 <ericstephan> Satya: You need to have enough to properly distinguish between two things (black shirt and blue shirt)
Satya Sahoo: You need to have enough to properly distinguish between two things (black shirt and blue shirt) ←
16:13:27 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
16:13:39 <tlebo> +1 to not needing to name the global thing and being PERMITTED to use your own name for the thing you are describing.
Timothy Lebo: +1 to not needing to name the global thing and being PERMITTED to use your own name for the thing you are describing. ←
16:14:04 <tlebo> we don't need to name entities to describe them.
Timothy Lebo: we don't need to name entities to describe them. ←
16:14:08 <zednik> audio is breaking up
Stephan Zednik: audio is breaking up ←
16:14:22 <tlebo> feedback on phone: please mute yourself.
Timothy Lebo: feedback on phone: please mute yourself. ←
16:14:32 <tlebo> thanks!
Timothy Lebo: thanks! ←
16:14:34 <ericstephan> Ilkay: We are trying to define to many things with one word.
Ilkay Altintas: We are trying to define to many things with one word. ←
16:14:34 <stain> Stian: the thing IS identifying the entity - we don't need to worry about how it identifies the entity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: the thing IS identifying the entity - we don't need to worry about how it identifies the entity [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
16:14:36 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is talking? ←
16:14:48 <pgroth> stain - yes
Paul Groth: stain - yes ←
16:14:48 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (46%)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (46%) ←
16:15:12 <zednik> audio is better now
Stephan Zednik: audio is better now ←
16:15:12 <pgroth> stian, i think that's exactly point
Paul Groth: stian, i think that's exactly point ←
16:15:21 <ericstephan> PaulG: Lets try to reject some of the words
Paul Groth: Lets try to reject some of the words ←
16:15:32 <zednik> vote to reject Observation
Stephan Zednik: vote to reject Observation ←
16:16:04 <zednik> vote to reject Assertion
Stephan Zednik: vote to reject Assertion ←
16:16:37 <stain> @pgroth, yes, the 'thing' is a contextualised way to talk about the entity, like our blue shirt in the office
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @pgroth, yes, the 'thing' is a contextualised way to talk about the entity, like our blue shirt in the office ←
16:16:49 <zednik> vote to reject Entity Assertion
Stephan Zednik: vote to reject Entity Assertion ←
16:17:05 <zednik> vote to reject Fingerprint
Stephan Zednik: vote to reject Fingerprint ←
16:17:10 <zednik> vote to reject Snapshot
Stephan Zednik: vote to reject Snapshot ←
16:17:12 <stain> -1 snapshot
Stian Soiland-Reyes: -1 snapshot ←
16:17:27 <zednik> half vote on Representation?
Stephan Zednik: half vote on Representation? ←
16:17:33 <stain> Representation is good - but 'taken' already by HTTP
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Representation is good - but 'taken' already by HTTP ←
16:19:03 <stain> Description - does it imply that you need to include the description? (ie. some properties)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Description - does it imply that you need to include the description? (ie. some properties) ←
16:19:22 <satya> I agree with James - state description
Satya Sahoo: I agree with James - state description ←
16:19:54 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:20:14 <pgroth> ack Ilkay
Paul Groth: ack Ilkay ←
16:20:35 <Zakim> +Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lena ←
16:20:48 <ericstephan> SimonM: The concept definitions from the conceptdefinitions page seem all very different than in the original definition.
Simon Miles: The concept definitions from the conceptdefinitions page seem all very different than in the original definition. ←
16:22:07 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
16:22:19 <ericstephan> is description to general?
is description to general? ←
16:22:23 <stain> +1 too general
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 too general ←
16:22:36 <pgroth> ack stay
Paul Groth: ack stay ←
16:22:38 <ericstephan> majority raised hands at f2f1
majority raised hands at f2f1 ←
16:22:41 <pgroth> ack sat
Paul Groth: ack sat ←
16:22:41 <zednik> +1 'just' Description is too general
Stephan Zednik: +1 'just' Description is too general ←
16:22:58 <stain> no, not a state, a view or understanding of the entity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: no, not a state, a view or understanding of the entity ←
16:23:10 <tlebo> anti "characterization": b/c describe the ___distinctive nature___ or features of
Timothy Lebo: anti "characterization": b/c describe the ___distinctive nature___ or features of ←
16:23:23 <tlebo> pro "characterization": b/c describe the distinctive nature or ___features of___
Timothy Lebo: pro "characterization": b/c describe the distinctive nature or ___features of___ ←
16:23:47 <stain> the distinctiveness is key
Stian Soiland-Reyes: the distinctiveness is key ←
16:25:12 <ericstephan> new editted definitions: http:www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions
new editted definitions: http:www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←
16:25:30 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions
Stian Soiland-Reyes: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←
16:25:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:26:07 <pgroth> ack telco
Paul Groth: ack telco ←
16:26:18 <Paolo> ack tlebo
Paolo Missier: ack tlebo ←
16:26:48 <ericstephan> Tim: Concerned about state in the definition.
Timothy Lebo: Concerned about state in the definition. ←
16:29:06 <ericstephan> Tim: Do I need two descriptions of temperature if the temperature changed over two hours?
Timothy Lebo: Do I need two descriptions of temperature if the temperature changed over two hours? ←
16:32:47 <Paulo> q+
16:33:21 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:33:26 <pgroth> ack Paulo
Paul Groth: ack Paulo ←
16:33:30 <tlebo> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
16:33:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:34:50 <ericstephan> Paulo: The task modeling approach doesn't need to know all the intermediate states. My concern is not states but state transition.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: The task modeling approach doesn't need to know all the intermediate states. My concern is not states but state transition. ←
16:35:27 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:36:50 <ericstephan> Tim: is proposing is to eliminate state at the top level.
Timothy Lebo: is proposing is to eliminate state at the top level. ←
16:38:09 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:38:13 <YolandaGil> q+
Yolanda Gil: q+ ←
16:38:17 <ericstephan> Deborah: A weakness of PML looking back is that we didn't have a top level concept state. If you added granularity to it, how would you describe state?
Deborah McGuinness: A weakness of PML looking back is that we didn't have a top level concept state. If you added granularity to it, how would you describe state? ←
16:39:00 <sandro> luc: temp drop example is like a car with a known velocity and unknown location.
Luc Moreau: temp drop example is like a car with a known velocity and unknown location. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:39:14 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
16:39:22 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
16:39:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:40:50 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:41:04 <ericstephan> JamesC: Why not have state description and change description?
James Cheney: Why not have state description and change description? ←
16:41:41 <sandro> q+ to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities.
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities. ←
16:41:52 <ericstephan> state description doesn't change, change description does change
state description doesn't change, change description does change ←
16:41:55 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
16:42:23 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil
Paul Groth: ack YolandaGil ←
16:42:40 <ericstephan> Yolanda: When i think about state I think about the state of the world, not of a particular entity.
Yolanda Gil: When i think about state I think about the state of the world, not of a particular entity. ←
16:43:11 <pgroth> ack sandro
Paul Groth: ack sandro ←
16:43:11 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities.
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask when state changes we have two SDs of one entity, or two entities. ←
16:44:06 <Deborah> i like james' slant with having both description and state description..... we just encourage state descriptions as we get more information
Deborah McGuinness: i like james' slant with having both description and state description..... we just encourage state descriptions as we get more information ←
16:46:01 <ericstephan> PaulG: I don't think anyone wants to demand which level of abstraction. State has implications
Paul Groth: I don't think anyone wants to demand which level of abstraction. State has implications ←
16:46:08 <YolandaGil> So I think we need to constrain ourselves to descriptions of the entity we are describing the provenance of. "State" often refers to state of the world and the context of that entity, so I'd recommend not to use the term "state"
Yolanda Gil: So I think we need to constrain ourselves to descriptions of the entity we are describing the provenance of. "State" often refers to state of the world and the context of that entity, so I'd recommend not to use the term "state" ←
16:46:42 <pgroth> ack stay
Paul Groth: ack stay ←
16:46:54 <pgroth> ack sat
Paul Groth: ack sat ←
16:47:00 <YolandaGil> I agree with whoever said that whether an entity is the same or not is a domain-dependent decision
Yolanda Gil: I agree with whoever said that whether an entity is the same or not is a domain-dependent decision ←
16:47:59 <Paolo> ...and I agree with Yolanda
Paolo Missier: ...and I agree with Yolanda ←
16:49:59 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
16:52:34 <stain> how is it spelt?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: how is it spelt? ←
16:52:46 <ericstephan> PaulG: Recommend using Bob as a placeholder until we find a replacement for thing
Paul Groth: Recommend using Bob as a placeholder until we find a replacement for thing ←
16:52:47 <Paolo> Bob? as "bob"
Paolo Missier: Bob? as "bob" ←
16:52:51 <stain> Bob! ihi
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Bob! ihi ←
16:53:04 <YolandaGil> as in "thingama-bob"?
Yolanda Gil: as in "thingama-bob"? ←
16:53:05 <stain> I heard 'bofh'
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I heard 'bofh' ←
16:53:14 <stain> YolandaGil: oh no, stuffama-bob!
Yolanda Gil: oh no, stuffama-bob! [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
16:53:18 <pgroth> we are breaking for lunch
Paul Groth: we are breaking for lunch ←
16:53:42 <ericstephan> :-) Yolanda
:-) Yolanda ←
16:53:50 <Zakim> -Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: -Lena ←
16:54:04 <Zakim> -[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←
16:54:09 <pgroth> we'll start again at in half an hour (1:30pm)
Paul Groth: we'll start again at in half an hour (1:30pm) ←
16:54:09 <stain> when is it back from lunch?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: when is it back from lunch? ←
16:54:12 <stain> ok
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ok ←
16:54:13 <stain> thanks
Stian Soiland-Reyes: thanks ←
16:54:19 <stain> time for dinner here :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: time for dinner here :) ←
17:27:28 <Luc> helena, stephan who is presenting?
(No events recorded for 33 minutes)
Luc Moreau: helena, stephan who is presenting? ←
17:28:19 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
17:30:44 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 3: Connection TF & Implementation TF
Summary: EricS and StephanZ respectively presented the work accomplished by the Connection and Implementation Task Forces. A good set of connections and implementers are identified. It was agreed that these task forces would focus on establishing a relationship with other groups/implementers,and keeping them ready to review our first public working drafts as they are released at T+6.
<luc>Summary: EricS and StephanZ respectively presented the work accomplished by the Connection and Implementation Task Forces. A good set of connections and implementers are identified. It was agreed that these task forces would focus on establishing a relationship with other groups/implementers,and keeping them ready to review our first public working drafts as they are released at T+6.
17:31:05 <Luc> SCRIBE: JimMcCusker
(Scribe set to James McCusker)
17:31:35 <pgroth> we are starting again
Paul Groth: we are starting again ←
17:31:41 <tlebo> I spoke with Simon at lunch. "State" is not constrained to a single moment in time. So I am comfortable with "State", but still not convinced it is necessary as part of the Concept term names.
Timothy Lebo: I spoke with Simon at lunch. "State" is not constrained to a single moment in time. So I am comfortable with "State", but still not convinced it is necessary as part of the Concept term names. ←
17:31:49 <Deborah> if remote people dropped off, now is a good time to call back in
Deborah McGuinness: if remote people dropped off, now is a good time to call back in ←
17:32:01 <pgroth> cool tle
Paul Groth: cool tle ←
17:32:08 <pgroth> cool tlebo
Paul Groth: cool tlebo ←
17:32:14 <Zakim> +[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←
17:32:19 <pgroth> i think there may be another name
Paul Groth: i think there may be another name ←
17:33:00 <pgroth> or a better name than state
Paul Groth: or a better name than state ←
17:33:48 <JimMcCusker> Likewise, I think I'm more comfortable with State as opposed to Description, but we need to be clear that it's a contextualized state, and is intended as assertions about an entity as described by an agent.
Likewise, I think I'm more comfortable with State as opposed to Description, but we need to be clear that it's a contextualized state, and is intended as assertions about an entity as described by an agent. ←
17:34:15 <smiles> @JimMcCusker agreed
Simon Miles: @JimMcCusker agreed ←
17:34:36 <Zakim> +zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←
17:35:06 <Deborah> we are getting the presentation up....
Deborah McGuinness: we are getting the presentation up.... ←
17:35:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Connection TF
Eric Stephan: Connection TF ←
17:38:37 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Open Brainstorming to identify different sorts of connections, define "connectivity"
Eric Stephan: Open Brainstorming to identify different sorts of connections, define "connectivity" ←
17:40:19 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Member contributions: DCMI, DataONE WG on Provenance, HCLS BioRDF TF, HCLS Sci Discource IG. and more.
Eric Stephan: Member contributions: DCMI, DataONE WG on Provenance, HCLS BioRDF TF, HCLS Sci Discource IG. and more. ←
17:43:12 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Next Steps: reach out to other connections? Quantify , Assess, Filter results. Identify linkage points for PIL, potential gaps between PIL and the connection.
Eric Stephan: Next Steps: reach out to other connections? Quantify , Assess, Filter results. Identify linkage points for PIL, potential gaps between PIL and the connection. ←
17:43:15 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau, Paul Groth
17:44:01 <Deborah> link to analytic provenance community eric mentioned - http://vacommunity.org/AnalyticProvenanceWorkshop
Deborah McGuinness: link to analytic provenance community eric mentioned - http://vacommunity.org/AnalyticProvenanceWorkshop ←
17:44:15 <JimMcCusker> thnx
thnx ←
17:45:56 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:46:08 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
17:46:36 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Balancing Act: Lots of provenance activities to reach out to, small group with which to do it. Don't want to bais.
Eric Stephan: Balancing Act: Lots of provenance activities to reach out to, small group with which to do it. Don't want to bais. ←
17:47:15 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Coordination: What do other task forces need from us? When should the task forces meet with us?
Eric Stephan: Coordination: What do other task forces need from us? When should the task forces meet with us? ←
17:47:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:47:39 <Luc> ack smiles
Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←
17:48:25 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Conflict between adoption and implementation specific issues. The Conn. TF is there to define the relationships.
Simon Miles: Conflict between adoption and implementation specific issues. The Conn. TF is there to define the relationships. ←
17:48:47 <Paolo> Q+
Paolo Missier: Q+ ←
17:48:51 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Concept of profiles, but maybe that's too heavyweight?
Simon Miles: Concept of profiles, but maybe that's too heavyweight? ←
17:48:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:49:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Communities need to be able to explain in their own language, but who does the formal connections?
Eric Stephan: Communities need to be able to explain in their own language, but who does the formal connections? ←
17:50:18 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
17:50:30 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Analytic Provenance still in early stages, but maybe they might be a first adopter.
Eric Stephan: Analytic Provenance still in early stages, but maybe they might be a first adopter. ←
17:50:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:51:05 <JimMcCusker> smiles: The bridge is being made by the WG TF?
Simon Miles: The bridge is being made by the WG TF? ←
17:51:13 <Luc> ack Paolo
Luc Moreau: ack Paolo ←
17:51:14 <Deborah> +q
Deborah McGuinness: +q ←
17:51:21 <tlebo> BTW, the vocab mappings is in a google spreadsheet and pdfs at http://inference-web.org/wiki/Review_of_prov-xg%27s_Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings
Timothy Lebo: BTW, the vocab mappings is in a google spreadsheet and pdfs at http://inference-web.org/wiki/Review_of_prov-xg%27s_Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings ←
17:51:25 <Deborah> whops +q (deborah)
Deborah McGuinness: whops +q (deborah) ←
17:51:30 <Paulo> q+
17:51:33 <JimMcCusker> paolo: is this where we talk about extension mechanisms?
Paolo Missier: is this where we talk about extension mechanisms? ←
17:51:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: extension or mapping into PIL.
Eric Stephan: extension or mapping into PIL. ←
17:52:02 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
17:52:16 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: We established the TF to make sure we get wide adoption.
Paul Groth: We established the TF to make sure we get wide adoption. ←
17:53:07 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: three levels: adoption, mapping, and extension.
Paul Groth: three levels: adoption, mapping, and extension. ←
17:53:30 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:53:31 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: initial steps are to establish links to other groups for feedback.
Paul Groth: initial steps are to establish links to other groups for feedback. ←
17:54:15 <JimMcCusker> Luc: There will be a question by the public: DC provenance vs. W3C provenance? And how can we work with both?
Luc Moreau: There will be a question by the public: DC provenance vs. W3C provenance? And how can we work with both? ←
17:54:45 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Some goals include hopefully provide mappings on standards like DC.
Luc Moreau: Some goals include hopefully provide mappings on standards like DC. ←
17:54:53 <tlebo> best link for DC's provenance definitions?
Timothy Lebo: best link for DC's provenance definitions? ←
17:54:59 <tlebo> dublin core's
Timothy Lebo: dublin core's ←
17:55:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
17:55:51 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: prov-xg did an excellent job identifying existing provenance.
Eric Stephan: prov-xg did an excellent job identifying existing provenance. ←
17:55:57 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
17:55:59 <satya> I agree with Luc - mappings and extensions are not in the scope of the WG
Satya Sahoo: I agree with Luc - mappings and extensions are not in the scope of the WG ←
17:56:07 <JimMcCusker> Luc: It's not the responsibility of the WG to map to PML, OPM, Provenir, etc.
Luc Moreau: It's not the responsibility of the WG to map to PML, OPM, Provenir, etc. ←
17:56:08 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
17:56:24 <YolandaGil> q+
Yolanda Gil: q+ ←
17:57:07 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: one example I find interesting is Creative Commons. The connection task force can show a way to link PIL to CC licensing standards.
Paul Groth: one example I find interesting is Creative Commons. The connection task force can show a way to link PIL to CC licensing standards. ←
17:57:12 <Luc> ack qwebirc
Luc Moreau: ack qwebirc ←
17:57:50 <JimMcCusker> deborah: Plea to start the mapping. The xg identified a number of issues that were found late in the game.
Deborah McGuinness: Plea to start the mapping. The xg identified a number of issues that were found late in the game. ←
17:57:58 <satya> q+ to Deborah's point
Satya Sahoo: q+ to Deborah's point ←
17:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.561.216.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.561.216.aadd ←
17:58:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: start with the uncontroversial mappings to experiment.
Eric Stephan: start with the uncontroversial mappings to experiment. ←
17:59:25 <Luc> ack paulo
Luc Moreau: ack paulo ←
18:00:25 <JimMcCusker> paulo: Working with scientists on cyber-infrastructure. NSF uses this on a domain basis. 500 or so cyber-infrastructures that come and go.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Working with scientists on cyber-infrastructure. NSF uses this on a domain basis. 500 or so cyber-infrastructures that come and go. ←
18:01:04 <JimMcCusker> paulo: many existing concepts in e science is already provenance.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: many existing concepts in e science is already provenance. ←
18:01:19 <JimMcCusker> +q
+q ←
18:01:38 <Luc> D6. PIL Best Practice Cookbook (W3C Note). This document includes a limited set of best practice profiles that link with other relevant models, such as Dublin Core provenance related concepts, licensing in Creative Commons, and the OpenId identity mechanism for people.
Luc Moreau: D6. PIL Best Practice Cookbook (W3C Note). This document includes a limited set of best practice profiles that link with other relevant models, such as Dublin Core provenance related concepts, licensing in Creative Commons, and the OpenId identity mechanism for people. ←
18:02:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:02:42 <YolandaGil> Luc: Thanks for bringing up D6. I agree with the 3 categories: 1) licensing and CC, 2) preservation (DC, Premis, InterPARES), 3) authentication (openID and digital signatures)
Luc Moreau: Thanks for bringing up D6. I agree with the 3 categories: 1) licensing and CC, 2) preservation (DC, Premis, InterPARES), 3) authentication (openID and digital signatures) [ Scribe Assist by Yolanda Gil ] ←
18:02:53 <Zakim> - +1.561.216.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.561.216.aadd ←
18:03:11 <JimMcCusker> -q
-q ←
18:03:23 <Zakim> + +1.858.210.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.858.210.aaee ←
18:04:24 <JimMcCusker> khalidbelhajjame: Mappings could help us identify issues in modeling.
Khalid Belhajjame: Mappings could help us identify issues in modeling. ←
18:04:40 <Luc> ack khalidbelhajjame
Luc Moreau: ack khalidbelhajjame ←
18:04:41 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is making noise? ←
18:04:47 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: Is the goal of the mapping to become inclusive of all other efforts?
Ilkay Altintas: Is the goal of the mapping to become inclusive of all other efforts? ←
18:04:52 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.858.210.aaee (24%), Meeting_Room (29%)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.858.210.aaee (24%), Meeting_Room (29%) ←
18:05:13 <JimMcCusker> Luc: To some extent, we will do this.
Luc Moreau: To some extent, we will do this. ←
18:05:14 <pgroth> where is this idea of mappings coming from?
Paul Groth: where is this idea of mappings coming from? ←
18:05:24 <Luc> ack IlkayAltintas
Luc Moreau: ack IlkayAltintas ←
18:05:29 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
18:05:46 <Luc> ack YolandaGil
Luc Moreau: ack YolandaGil ←
18:05:53 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: Likes the 3 categories of D6, and need to be driven by those sort of tasks.
Yolanda Gil: Likes the 3 categories of D6, and need to be driven by those sort of tasks. ←
18:06:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:07:03 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: we will fail the group if we don't link to other groups within W3C.
Yolanda Gil: we will fail the group if we don't link to other groups within W3C. ←
18:07:39 <Zakim> - +1.858.210.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.858.210.aaee ←
18:08:31 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: in science communities, questions about what scientifically driven folks are participating.
Yolanda Gil: in science communities, questions about what scientifically driven folks are participating. ←
18:08:48 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
18:08:48 <Zakim> satya, you wanted to Deborah's point
Zakim IRC Bot: satya, you wanted to Deborah's point ←
18:08:58 <JimMcCusker> satya: We won't have time to address all concerns of communities.
Satya Sahoo: We won't have time to address all concerns of communities. ←
18:09:14 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:09:38 <YolandaGil> Doing mappings to other vocabularies is a lot of work, for the XG our mappings were an order of magnitude more work than we originally expected.
Yolanda Gil: Doing mappings to other vocabularies is a lot of work, for the XG our mappings were an order of magnitude more work than we originally expected. ←
18:09:41 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
18:09:42 <JimMcCusker> satya: on mappings, there might be complex mappings that might not get finished.
Satya Sahoo: on mappings, there might be complex mappings that might not get finished. ←
18:09:58 <zednik> file at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:ITCTF_F2F1.pdf
Stephan Zednik: file at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:ITCTF_F2F1.pdf ←
18:10:22 <Deborah> just to be clear - I suggested starting the mappings to some key targets... I realize that the complete mapping is potentially time consuming but i think at least getting some initial thinking about the mapping needs to be done (from deborah)
Deborah McGuinness: just to be clear - I suggested starting the mappings to some key targets... I realize that the complete mapping is potentially time consuming but i think at least getting some initial thinking about the mapping needs to be done (from deborah) ←
18:10:35 <Zakim> +Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lena ←
18:10:37 <YolandaGil> I think rather than mappings we need to start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities. Then engage other communities if we decide to do certain mappings, but doing the mappings ourselves and as an initial goal will be too hard.
Yolanda Gil: I think rather than mappings we need to start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities. Then engage other communities if we decide to do certain mappings, but doing the mappings ourselves and as an initial goal will be too hard. ←
18:13:28 <JimMcCusker> Impl Questionnaire URL: http://goo.gl/rHxAg
Impl Questionnaire URL: http://goo.gl/rHxAg ←
18:15:13 <JimMcCusker> zednik: What did I mean by Plain HTML?
Stephan Zednik: What did I mean by Plain HTML? ←
18:15:35 <satya> @Deborah: I agree to your point that other standards should inform our work, but creating explicit mapping will be difficult (even for something like DC - which does not have formal/mathematical definitions)
Satya Sahoo: @Deborah: I agree to your point that other standards should inform our work, but creating explicit mapping will be difficult (even for something like DC - which does not have formal/mathematical definitions) ←
18:15:38 <JimMcCusker> Most interest in toolkits in Java
Most interest in toolkits in Java ←
18:15:43 <stain> <div class="provenance"> !
Stian Soiland-Reyes: <div class="provenance"> ! ←
18:16:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:16:38 <JimMcCusker> +q
+q ←
18:17:14 <stain> .. but note that almost 60% are using something else than Java (as well)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: .. but note that almost 60% are using something else than Java (as well) ←
18:17:42 <Paolo_> Q?
Paolo Missier: Q? ←
18:17:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:17:54 <Luc> ack JimMcCusker
Luc Moreau: ack JimMcCusker ←
18:18:01 <Paolo_> Q?
Paolo Missier: Q? ←
18:18:29 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker: I will reach out to caBIG for additional feedback using questionnaire.
James McCusker: I will reach out to caBIG for additional feedback using questionnaire. ←
18:18:39 <JimMcCusker> Luc: What's next?
Luc Moreau: What's next? ←
18:19:42 <YolandaGil> what is the third level? it's sooo hard to hear...
Yolanda Gil: what is the third level? it's sooo hard to hear... ←
18:20:07 <pgroth> scientific communities
Paul Groth: scientific communities ←
18:20:10 <YolandaGil> ah, yes, got it all!
Yolanda Gil: ah, yes, got it all! ←
18:20:13 <YolandaGil> thanks!
Yolanda Gil: thanks! ←
18:20:37 <JimMcCusker> Luc: First Level: Licensing, etc., Second Level: W3C communities, Third level: scientific communities
Luc Moreau: First Level: Licensing, etc., Second Level: W3C communities, Third level: scientific communities ←
18:20:40 <Lena> @sandro any chance that the quality of the sound in the room is improved? the mic wakes up in the middle of sentences, so we are missing some parts of waht people are saying
Helena Deus: @sandro any chance that the quality of the sound in the room is improved? the mic wakes up in the middle of sentences, so we are missing some parts of waht people are saying ←
18:21:29 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
18:21:47 <JimMcCusker> Luc: what sort of coordination is expected?
Luc Moreau: what sort of coordination is expected? ←
18:22:04 <JimMcCusker> sandro: whatever is in the charter.
Sandro Hawke: whatever is in the charter. ←
18:23:08 <JimMcCusker> deborah: What about open govt data?
Deborah McGuinness: What about open govt data? ←
18:23:15 <Zakim> -Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: -Lena ←
18:23:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: their charter mentions prov-wg, so there is a connection.
Sandro Hawke: their charter mentions prov-wg, so there is a connection. ←
18:24:36 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:25:46 <ericstephan> q+
Eric Stephan: q+ ←
18:26:01 <JimMcCusker> Luc: JimMcCusker, Lena, and satya should provide interfaces with HCLS.
Luc Moreau: JimMcCusker, Lena, and satya should provide interfaces with HCLS. ←
18:26:36 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:26:40 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
18:26:54 <YolandaGil> I also mentioned the geospatial group at W3C, my understanding is that they are focused on ISO 19115 -- that is a very high impact area!
Yolanda Gil: I also mentioned the geospatial group at W3C, my understanding is that they are focused on ISO 19115 -- that is a very high impact area! ←
18:27:19 <sandro> +1 liasons using drafts as way to communicate.
Sandro Hawke: +1 liasons using drafts as way to communicate. ←
18:27:21 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: only 3 months until we have a first draft. Maybe outreach should happen once we have something to show.
Paul Groth: only 3 months until we have a first draft. Maybe outreach should happen once we have something to show. ←
18:27:26 <Luc> we also have a rep of the OGC consortium in the WG
Luc Moreau: we also have a rep of the OGC consortium in the WG ←
18:27:40 <YolandaGil> yes, Carl Reed
Yolanda Gil: yes, Carl Reed ←
18:27:56 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: Until then, we make sure we have the right framework in place to introduce the PIL.
Paul Groth: Until then, we make sure we have the right framework in place to introduce the PIL. ←
18:28:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:29:19 <Luc> ack ericstephan
Luc Moreau: ack ericstephan ←
18:29:49 <YolandaGil> I agree with Paul, start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities. An initial report in 3 months makes sense too.
Yolanda Gil: I agree with Paul, start with an informal report of how our goals relate to other activities. An initial report in 3 months makes sense too. ←
18:30:12 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Would cataloging possible early adopters be a useful product?
Eric Stephan: Would cataloging possible early adopters be a useful product? ←
18:31:16 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
18:31:27 <Lena> (I am trying to convince HCLS to leave the prov work to the prov wg ;) )
Helena Deus: (I am trying to convince HCLS to leave the prov work to the prov wg ;) ) ←
18:31:41 <JimMcCusker> Luc: how do we go about producing the report?
Luc Moreau: how do we go about producing the report? ←
18:32:01 <pgroth> go lena!
Paul Groth: go lena! ←
18:32:25 <YolandaGil> Lena: that's a great goal, but they have many additional requirements that might be too much to cover for us :)
Helena Deus: that's a great goal, but they have many additional requirements that might be too much to cover for us :) [ Scribe Assist by Yolanda Gil ] ←
18:32:58 <Zakim> +Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lena ←
18:33:21 <JimMcCusker> action: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection.
ACTION: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. ←
18:33:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [on Eric Stephan - due 2011-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-13 - Create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [on Eric Stephan - due 2011-07-13]. ←
18:33:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:33:30 <ericstephan> Action Plan to deliver the connection report and the plan will include a timetable and a list of connections and individuals who will contribute a description of their connection.
Eric Stephan: Action Plan to deliver the connection report and the plan will include a timetable and a list of connections and individuals who will contribute a description of their connection. ←
18:33:30 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Plan
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Plan ←
18:35:34 <JimMcCusker> Note ACTION-13 should have due date of 2011-07-14.
Note ACTION-13 should have due date of 2011-07-14. ←
18:35:50 <YolandaGil> EricS: I will absolutely help with the report, though I have very limited availability until Aug 15 unfortunately
Eric Stephan: I will absolutely help with the report, though I have very limited availability until Aug 15 unfortunately [ Scribe Assist by Yolanda Gil ] ←
18:35:51 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:36:17 <Luc> ack paolo
Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←
18:36:38 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: It would be good to use direct liasons to communities and working groups.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: It would be good to use direct liasons to communities and working groups. ←
18:37:21 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connection_Task_Force#Connections
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connection_Task_Force#Connections ←
18:37:41 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: please take note of community milestones.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: please take note of community milestones. ←
18:37:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:38:17 <YolandaGil> Paolo: I agree. I'd suggest that the WG develops one slide with an overview/wiki pointer/POC that we can all use when we go present our stuff or attend meetings!
Paolo Missier: I agree. I'd suggest that the WG develops one slide with an overview/wiki pointer/POC that we can all use when we go present our stuff or attend meetings! [ Scribe Assist by Yolanda Gil ] ←
18:38:27 <Lena> (need to include countries in the questionnaire also)
Helena Deus: (need to include countries in the questionnaire also) ←
18:38:30 <JimMcCusker> zednik: Tasks implementation should do is to catalog stakeholders, put out a second version of the questionnaire.
Stephan Zednik: Tasks implementation should do is to catalog stakeholders, put out a second version of the questionnaire. ←
18:39:37 <Lena> (goal of the survey: if people are able to express their opinion, they will more likely adopt the product of the wg)
Helena Deus: (goal of the survey: if people are able to express their opinion, they will more likely adopt the product of the wg) ←
18:41:00 <Lena> (since some of them have offered contact information and interest in developing toolkits, we can contact them once we have a product)
Helena Deus: (since some of them have offered contact information and interest in developing toolkits, we can contact them once we have a product) ←
18:41:58 <zednik> gather implementation requirements - touches upon access and connection TF as well
Stephan Zednik: gather implementation requirements - touches upon access and connection TF as well ←
18:42:19 <zednik> audio is really breaking up for me right now
Stephan Zednik: audio is really breaking up for me right now ←
18:42:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:42:53 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
18:42:53 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
18:43:16 <JimMcCusker> action: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report
ACTION: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report ←
18:43:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Create a plan for a implementation report [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-14 - Create a plan for a implementation report [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13]. ←
18:43:50 <JimMcCusker> Note actual due date for ACTION-14 is 2011-07-14.
Note actual due date for ACTION-14 is 2011-07-14. ←
18:44:14 <JimMcCusker> action: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire.
ACTION: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire. ←
18:44:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Write second iteration of the questionnaire. [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-15 - Write second iteration of the questionnaire. [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-13]. ←
18:44:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:44:43 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Test cases and use cases.
Luc Moreau: Test cases and use cases. ←
18:45:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:45:30 <zednik> example of test cases from W3C process - http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
Stephan Zednik: example of test cases from W3C process - http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ ←
18:46:02 <Lena> those in the room, PLEASE scribe the questions directed to me or stephan - we REALLY are having a hard time hearing what's going on in the room!
Helena Deus: those in the room, PLEASE scribe the questions directed to me or stephan - we REALLY are having a hard time hearing what's going on in the room! ←
18:46:20 <JimMcCusker> jcheney: split use cases into generating and storing use cases?
James Cheney: split use cases into generating and storing use cases? ←
18:46:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:47:03 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:47:07 <JimMcCusker> smiles: test cases need to be implementation-specific.
Simon Miles: test cases need to be implementation-specific. ←
18:47:40 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
18:48:08 <JimMcCusker> zednik: test cases must be machine processable as well as implementation-specific.
Stephan Zednik: test cases must be machine processable as well as implementation-specific. ←
18:48:20 <JimMcCusker> zednik: therefore, we need a formal schema.
Stephan Zednik: therefore, we need a formal schema. ←
18:48:48 <JimMcCusker> zednik: how are these test cases different from other kinds of test cases?
Stephan Zednik: how are these test cases different from other kinds of test cases? ←
18:48:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:49:05 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:49:32 <satya> We need to consider that the test cases are part of the W3C recommendation process - notionally demonstrates that our work is practical/implementable
Satya Sahoo: We need to consider that the test cases are part of the W3C recommendation process - notionally demonstrates that our work is practical/implementable ←
18:49:36 <JimMcCusker> Luc: The idea of a validator isn't bad. We may come up with additional constraints that aren't syntactic.
Luc Moreau: The idea of a validator isn't bad. We may come up with additional constraints that aren't syntactic. ←
18:50:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:50:09 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
18:50:13 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
18:50:16 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: We all agree we need test cases, but it's too early to figure out what those test cases should be yet.
Paul Groth: We all agree we need test cases, but it's too early to figure out what those test cases should be yet. ←
18:50:50 <JimMcCusker> sandro: test cases were used along the way to record decisions in other groups like OWL.
Sandro Hawke: test cases were used along the way to record decisions in other groups like OWL. ←
18:51:40 <JimMcCusker> Luc; we're not going to have test cases for a while, around T+7.
Luc; we're not going to have test cases for a while, around T+7. ←
18:51:43 <Deborah> (from deborah) we have a integrity constraint-based validator model for PML (my student Jiao Tao's phd work is on this). just mentioning it for the notes since we may want to come back and look at this model
Deborah McGuinness: (from deborah) we have a integrity constraint-based validator model for PML (my student Jiao Tao's phd work is on this). just mentioning it for the notes since we may want to come back and look at this model ←
18:51:59 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: we can talk about this in 2 month's time and still have test cases in time.
Paul Groth: we can talk about this in 2 month's time and still have test cases in time. ←
18:52:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:52:23 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: coming up with test cases is easier with a draft document to work against.
Paul Groth: coming up with test cases is easier with a draft document to work against. ←
18:52:41 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
18:53:12 <Luc> ack Ilk
Luc Moreau: ack Ilk ←
18:53:15 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
18:53:27 <JimMcCusker> zednik: we do need feedback from implementers on what test cases they would like to see.
Stephan Zednik: we do need feedback from implementers on what test cases they would like to see. ←
18:53:58 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:54:09 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: What about backwards compatibility?
Ilkay Altintas: What about backwards compatibility? ←
18:54:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: this isn't an issue until we get to candidate recommendation.
Sandro Hawke: this isn't an issue until we get to candidate recommendation. ←
18:54:50 <Luc> ack jcheney
Luc Moreau: ack jcheney ←
18:54:52 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:55:11 <zednik> audio is breaking up
Stephan Zednik: audio is breaking up ←
18:55:27 <sandro> zednik, James just talks very softly.
Sandro Hawke: zednik, James just talks very softly. ←
18:55:37 <JimMcCusker> jcheney: It seems that as we work on the model, there will be decision points, and each of those points should be recorded as a test case.
James Cheney: It seems that as we work on the model, there will be decision points, and each of those points should be recorded as a test case. ←
18:55:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:56:07 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:56:50 <Lena> (heya ericP!)
Helena Deus: (heya ericP!) ←
18:56:51 <JimMcCusker> sandro: Introductions of Eric Prud'hommeaux
Sandro Hawke: Introductions of Eric Prud'hommeaux ←
18:57:23 <JimMcCusker> (ericP to the rest of us).
(ericP to the rest of us). ←
18:57:32 <Zakim> -Lena
Zakim IRC Bot: -Lena ←
19:08:34 <Zakim> -[ISI]
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←
19:15:43 <stain> what's going on.. is it still the break?
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what's going on.. is it still the break? ←
19:15:57 <stain> I heard Luc and Satya and started paying attention
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I heard Luc and Satya and started paying attention ←
19:16:21 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
19:16:32 <zednik> according to my calendar we should have anothe 15 minutes of break
Stephan Zednik: according to my calendar we should have anothe 15 minutes of break ←
19:18:46 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
19:20:26 <GK> zakim, ??p0 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p0 is me ←
19:20:26 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
19:26:29 <IlkayAltintas> t
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Ilkay Altintas: t ←
19:26:57 <Luc> Scribe: TLebo
(Scribe set to Timothy Lebo)
19:27:22 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 4: Model TF
Summary: The definitions of concepts "process execution", "generation", "use", and "derivation" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).
<luc> Summary: The definitions of concepts "process execution", "generation", "use", and "derivation" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).
19:27:30 <Luc> SUBTOPIC: Process Execution
19:28:34 <Zakim> +zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←
19:29:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←
19:29:59 <tlebo> BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription
BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription ←
19:30:01 <Deborah> restaurant - http://www.tommydoyles.com/ - 1 Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02138 617-225-0888 (right sandro?)
Deborah McGuinness: restaurant - http://www.tommydoyles.com/ - 1 Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02138 617-225-0888 (right sandro?) ←
19:30:15 <tlebo> we are NOT defining BOB in this sesssion
we are NOT defining BOB in this sesssion ←
19:30:29 <sandro> right, Deborah
Sandro Hawke: right, Deborah ←
19:30:48 <tlebo> q?
q? ←
19:31:03 <sandro> reservation is under "W3C" for 21 people (18 of us, and 3 additional family members)
Sandro Hawke: reservation is under "W3C" for 21 people (18 of us, and 3 additional family members) ←
19:31:20 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts ←
19:31:22 <JimMcCusker> For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/
James McCusker: For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/ ←
19:32:46 <tlebo> rephrased definition of process execution: A process execution is an activity that uses (zero or more) entities in specific states, described by BOBs, performs a piece of work, and generates (zero or more) new entities in specific states, described by BOBS.
rephrased definition of process execution: A process execution is an activity that uses (zero or more) entities in specific states, described by BOBs, performs a piece of work, and generates (zero or more) new entities in specific states, described by BOBS. ←
19:33:17 <Paulo> q+
19:33:30 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
19:33:58 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
19:34:09 <tlebo> jimmc: can we NOT imply agency in the process?
James McCusker: can we NOT imply agency in the process? ←
19:34:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:35:07 <tlebo> q+ does the working def infer agency?
q+ does the working def infer agency? ←
19:35:30 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:36:11 <tlebo> paulo: fundamental issues. e.g. "generate" making new entities w/o specifying the process (recipe?) used.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: fundamental issues. e.g. "generate" making new entities w/o specifying the process (recipe?) used. ←
19:36:17 <Luc> ack Paulo
Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←
19:36:36 <tlebo> paulo: process of asserting or deriving or both or neither?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: process of asserting or deriving or both or neither? ←
19:38:04 <tlebo> I am trying to track provenance of the pages discussing concepts at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts
I am trying to track provenance of the pages discussing concepts at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts ←
19:38:23 <tlebo> q+ to ask about managing our page creation
q+ to ask about managing our page creation ←
19:38:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:40:06 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
19:40:16 <tlebo> zednik: ask to clarify producing 0 or more entities' states (new BOBs describing a previous Entity)
Stephan Zednik: ask to clarify producing 0 or more entities' states (new BOBs describing a previous Entity) ←
19:40:42 <zednik> new bobs?
Stephan Zednik: new bobs? ←
19:40:45 <GK> I think entity::BOB relationship is n::m
Graham Klyne: I think entity::BOB relationship is n::m ←
19:40:45 <stain> yes
Stian Soiland-Reyes: yes ←
19:40:51 <satya> a general comment (following on Stephan's comment): Do we lose any information if we remove the "state" and "Bob" from the current definition?
Satya Sahoo: a general comment (following on Stephan's comment): Do we lose any information if we remove the "state" and "Bob" from the current definition? ←
19:40:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:40:56 <GK> Or may be
Graham Klyne: Or may be ←
19:41:02 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
19:41:03 <Luc> ack stain
Luc Moreau: ack stain ←
19:41:36 <Luc> ack tlebo
Luc Moreau: ack tlebo ←
19:41:36 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about managing our page creation
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask about managing our page creation ←
19:41:38 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts ←
19:42:07 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
19:43:00 <tlebo> existing issue 1 - It should be understood that, in the definition, use, perform a piece of work, and generate do not have to be performed sequentially, e.g. some generate can happen before some use
existing ISSUE-1 - It should be understood that, in the definition, use, perform a piece of work, and generate do not have to be performed sequentially, e.g. some generate can happen before some use ←
19:43:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:43:37 <stain> slightly louder please :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: slightly louder please :) ←
19:44:01 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
19:44:17 <tlebo> we will be louder
we will be louder ←
19:44:26 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
19:44:36 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:44:38 <tlebo> ordering of use and generation - any order is acceptable?
ordering of use and generation - any order is acceptable? ←
19:44:49 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
19:45:17 <tlebo> stain: compound processes - this is needed.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: compound processes - this is needed. ←
19:45:20 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:45:38 <tlebo> we need to compose (and abstract) processes.
we need to compose (and abstract) processes. ←
19:45:44 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
19:46:48 <tlebo> satya: orig def included state as part of the Stuff. Now that we have Entities described by BOBs. BOBs are not changing.
Satya Sahoo: orig def included state as part of the Stuff. Now that we have Entities described by BOBs. BOBs are not changing. ←
19:47:09 <tlebo> satya: just leave it at generating BOBs?
Satya Sahoo: just leave it at generating BOBs? ←
19:47:23 <stain> yes - it uses an entity (in such a state) as described by the BOB
Stian Soiland-Reyes: yes - it uses an entity (in such a state) as described by the BOB ←
19:47:42 <stain> but just talking about BOBs avoids us having to disassemble the BOBs every time its used
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but just talking about BOBs avoids us having to disassemble the BOBs every time its used ←
19:47:44 <zednik> +1 to BOBS as input/output
Stephan Zednik: +1 to BOBS as input/output ←
19:48:03 <tlebo> luc: processes to not generate BOBs; they generate entities that are described by BOBs.
Luc Moreau: processes to not generate BOBs; they generate entities that are described by BOBs. ←
19:48:06 <stain> perhaps the BOB is more like a proxy than a description
Stian Soiland-Reyes: perhaps the BOB is more like a proxy than a description ←
19:48:28 <GK> I've lost the plot: how cab BOBs be input?
Graham Klyne: I've lost the plot: how cab BOBs be input? ←
19:48:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:48:29 <stain> like a smart query in itunes
Stian Soiland-Reyes: like a smart query in itunes ←
19:48:34 <tlebo> -1 BOBs at I/O - I/O is Entities that can be described by BOBs.
-1 BOBs at I/O - I/O is Entities that can be described by BOBs. ←
19:48:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:49:06 <stain> if Bob is to be useful it needs to be standing instead of the entity - otherwise everything is just "entity as described by a bob"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if Bob is to be useful it needs to be standing instead of the entity - otherwise everything is just "entity as described by a bob" ←
19:49:13 <zednik> if entities is I/O, then why even have BOB?
Stephan Zednik: if entities is I/O, then why even have BOB? ←
19:49:30 <GK> @tlebo: +1 (BOBs not I/O of process execution?)
Graham Klyne: @tlebo: +1 (BOBs not I/O of process execution?) ←
19:49:38 <tlebo> paulo: Recipe. Process Execution is an execution of a Recipe.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Recipe. Process Execution is an execution of a Recipe. ←
19:50:09 <tlebo> q+ to ask if BOBs on output end are optional
q+ to ask if BOBs on output end are optional ←
19:50:44 <stain> @tlebo - when I summarised process execution I said 0-or-more both for inputs and outputs
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo - when I summarised process execution I said 0-or-more both for inputs and outputs ←
19:50:59 <tlebo> Recipe vs. Reproducible
Recipe vs. Reproducible ←
19:51:01 <stain> (the process might act as an agent instead, or just be very lonely)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (the process might act as an agent instead, or just be very lonely) ←
19:51:37 <stain> what is the decission?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what is the decission? ←
19:51:53 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE1 is done.
RESOLVED: issue PE1 is done. ←
19:52:46 <tlebo> proposed issue PE2 - A process execution should be associated with an actor. (Proposed by Jun on 2011-05-31)
proposed issue PE2 - A process execution should be associated with an actor. (Proposed by Jun on 2011-05-31) ←
19:53:09 <tlebo> proposed: Process Execution issue PE3 - A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31)
PROPOSED: Process Execution issue PE3 - A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31) ←
19:53:26 <GK> Issue PE3: why does this matter?
Graham Klyne: Issue PE3: why does this matter? ←
19:53:39 <tlebo> paulo: predefined recipe vs. unspecified recipe
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: predefined recipe vs. unspecified recipe ←
19:53:51 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
19:54:23 <tlebo> recipe is nameable/unnamed, repeatable/unrepeatable, specified/unspecified.
recipe is nameable/unnamed, repeatable/unrepeatable, specified/unspecified. ←
19:54:31 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
19:54:37 <stain> Zakim, ??P2 is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, ??P2 is me ←
19:54:37 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
19:56:41 <tlebo> jimmccusker: recipes are specified as a Recipe role of a process execution.
James McCusker: recipes are specified as a Recipe role of a process execution. ←
19:56:52 <Paolo_> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
19:57:17 <GK> Why do we need recipe in our vocabulary?
Graham Klyne: Why do we need recipe in our vocabulary? ←
19:58:00 <tlebo> luc: revisiting - distinction between process execution and process specification
Luc Moreau: revisiting - distinction between process execution and process specification ←
19:58:37 <tlebo> luc: specifying a recipe is out of scope for wg (recipe ~= process specification)
Luc Moreau: specifying a recipe is out of scope for wg (recipe ~= process specification) ←
19:58:41 <Paolo_> @gk we don't. We are pointing out that it is out of scope of the wg
Paolo Missier: @gk we don't. We are pointing out that it is out of scope of the wg ←
19:58:54 <tlebo> paulo: this will make it harder to formalize
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: this will make it harder to formalize ←
19:59:19 <GK> "We describe process executions independently of how the process is specified" - what more is needed?
Graham Klyne: "We describe process executions independently of how the process is specified" - what more is needed? ←
19:59:20 <Paolo_> I mean, it is a sort of undefined term for us. A placeholder that will not be resolved...?
Paolo Missier: I mean, it is a sort of undefined term for us. A placeholder that will not be resolved...? ←
20:00:25 <tlebo> paulo: need to define work, activity, recipe. specification of process execution is in terms of recipe.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: need to define work, activity, recipe. specification of process execution is in terms of recipe. ←
20:00:28 <stain> @GK - agreed
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK - agreed ←
20:00:42 <tlebo> q+ to ask if the spec has to be pre-defined or can be described after the fact. (e.g. luc running around the room)
q+ to ask if the spec has to be pre-defined or can be described after the fact. (e.g. luc running around the room) ←
20:00:57 <tlebo> paulo: rebuilding what was done.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: rebuilding what was done. ←
20:01:21 <tlebo> luc: workflow script is a kind of recipe.
Luc Moreau: workflow script is a kind of recipe. ←
20:01:49 <Paolo_> For those back home: Luc just went for a quick jog around the room...
Paolo Missier: For those back home: Luc just went for a quick jog around the room... ←
20:01:55 <stain> ;-))
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ;-)) ←
20:03:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:03:20 <tlebo> we are trying to distinguish 1) process execution and 2) process specification
we are trying to distinguish 1) process execution and 2) process specification ←
20:03:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:05:37 <tlebo> action: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group.
ACTION: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. ←
20:05:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-16 - Document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-13]. ←
20:05:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:06:08 <tlebo> q?
q? ←
20:07:45 <tlebo> tlebo: concerned about "pre-defined" - can the recipe be described after the process execution has occurred and been described?
Timothy Lebo: concerned about "pre-defined" - can the recipe be described after the process execution has occurred and been described? ←
20:08:08 <stain> what if we just say 'defined' ?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what if we just say 'defined' ? ←
20:08:22 <GK> As stated, issue PE3 looks like a content-free assertion. I'm not sure what value it adds.
Graham Klyne: As stated, issue PE3 looks like a content-free assertion. I'm not sure what value it adds. ←
20:08:26 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE3. A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31)
RESOLVED: issue PE3. A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31) ←
20:08:53 <tlebo> (my post-description concern is handled in "or not" situation)
(my post-description concern is handled in "or not" situation) ←
20:09:06 <tlebo> resolved issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20)
resolved issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20) ←
20:09:12 <tlebo> resolved: issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20)
RESOLVED: issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20) ←
20:09:56 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
20:10:10 <tlebo> proposed: issue PE5 A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20)
PROPOSED: issue PE5 A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20) ←
20:10:14 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:10:42 <stain> A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in which all inputs and outputs are fully determined. (Proposed by Graham and curated by Jun on 2011-06-20) ←
20:11:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:11:23 <tlebo> gk: getting around everything in the past.
Graham Klyne: getting around everything in the past. ←
20:11:24 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
20:11:59 <tlebo> jimmccusker: process execution is a closed world. no other inputs/outputs can be added.
James McCusker: process execution is a closed world. no other inputs/outputs can be added. ←
20:12:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
20:12:04 <tlebo> group said no!
group said no! ←
20:12:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:12:15 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
20:12:16 <tlebo> gk: it is not going to CHANGE (in/outs)
Graham Klyne: it is not going to CHANGE (in/outs) ←
20:12:45 <tlebo> group is not comfortable with all in/outs being fully specified.
group is not comfortable with all in/outs being fully specified. ←
20:12:47 <GK> We had said in/out s are fully known, but that didn't work...
Graham Klyne: We had said in/out s are fully known, but that didn't work... ←
20:12:53 <tlebo> @gk - you're typing
@gk - you're typing ←
20:12:53 <stain> GK - mute
Stian Soiland-Reyes: GK - mute ←
20:12:54 <GK> ... hence tried "determined"
Graham Klyne: ... hence tried "determined" ←
20:13:01 <stain> we can hear your typing mood :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we can hear your typing mood :) ←
20:13:05 <GK> muted
Graham Klyne: muted ←
20:13:26 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
20:14:05 <Paulo> q+
20:14:10 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
20:14:54 <Luc> ack kha
Luc Moreau: ack kha ←
20:14:55 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
20:15:03 <tlebo> gk: most of time saying in past is OK. but may lead to issues.
Graham Klyne: most of time saying in past is OK. but may lead to issues. ←
20:15:26 <GK> I'm uneasy about forcing process execution into the past ... think it could trip us up, not sure why.
Graham Klyne: I'm uneasy about forcing process execution into the past ... think it could trip us up, not sure why. ←
20:15:52 <Luc> ack zed
Luc Moreau: ack zed ←
20:15:53 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: a currently running process execution may continue to take new inputs and produce new outputs after a user asks about it.
Khalid Belhajjame: a currently running process execution may continue to take new inputs and produce new outputs after a user asks about it. ←
20:16:33 <GK> "A potential futiure event is not an occurrent" - is this true?
Graham Klyne: "A potential futiure event is not an occurrent" - is this true? ←
20:16:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:16:56 <zednik> definition I used: "actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical."
Stephan Zednik: definition I used: "actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical." ←
20:17:00 <tlebo> zednik: if process execution is an occurrent, then it must have started (but not nec. finished). must NOT be planned for future.
Stephan Zednik: if process execution is an occurrent, then it must have started (but not nec. finished). must NOT be planned for future. ←
20:17:06 <zednik> from new oxford american dictionary
Stephan Zednik: from new oxford american dictionary ←
20:17:13 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
20:17:20 <Luc> ack paul
Luc Moreau: ack paul ←
20:17:25 <tlebo> paulo: we've learned that many restrictions are relaxed as a language is applied to other situations.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we've learned that many restrictions are relaxed as a language is applied to other situations. ←
20:17:29 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
20:17:42 <tlebo> paulo: e.g. provenance of greek vase
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: e.g. provenance of greek vase ←
20:18:09 <tlebo> paulo: what about an unknown process that we still want to describe?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: what about an unknown process that we still want to describe? ←
20:18:28 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
20:18:54 <tlebo> group disagrees with "fully determined"
group disagrees with "fully determined" ←
20:18:58 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:19:10 <Luc> ack smiles
Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←
20:19:20 <GK> I also think "fully determined" doesn't cut it. So +1
Graham Klyne: I also think "fully determined" doesn't cut it. So +1 ←
20:19:38 <tlebo> smiles: do we lose anything by NOT saying that it has to be in the past?
Simon Miles: do we lose anything by NOT saying that it has to be in the past? ←
20:19:47 <tlebo> satya: MUST be in past.
Satya Sahoo: MUST be in past. ←
20:20:14 <JimMcCusker> +1 on Stephan's proposal: Process Execution is an occurrent, and therefore must have started in the past relative to the provenance assertion.
James McCusker: +1 on Stephan's proposal: Process Execution is an occurrent, and therefore must have started in the past relative to the provenance assertion. ←
20:20:22 <tlebo> smiles: putting it into the definition limits us. leave it for the primer "provenance is about things in the past"
Simon Miles: putting it into the definition limits us. leave it for the primer "provenance is about things in the past" ←
20:21:01 <tlebo> satya: provenance metadata vs. other types of metadata. only distinction is that provenance is past. Must put it into definition of process execution.
Satya Sahoo: provenance metadata vs. other types of metadata. only distinction is that provenance is past. Must put it into definition of process execution. ←
20:21:03 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
20:21:11 <tlebo> smiles: then put "past" into all definitions?
Simon Miles: then put "past" into all definitions? ←
20:21:14 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
20:22:37 <Luc> all assertions in PIL have to be interpreted as something that has happened
Luc Moreau: all assertions in PIL have to be interpreted as something that has happened ←
20:22:42 <tlebo> resolved: GK's phrasing of process execution not satisfactory. change 1, change 2 (zednik) must not be planned for future, must have started. change 3 (luc et al.)
RESOLVED: GK's phrasing of process execution not satisfactory. change 1, change 2 (zednik) must not be planned for future, must have started. change 3 (luc et al.) ←
20:23:06 <tlebo> pgroth: yo .... dude ...
Paul Groth: yo .... dude ... ←
20:23:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:23:32 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
20:24:05 <tlebo> zednik: by using occurrent - then it may not be finished that makes output in real time that we want to encode. we can't say outputs are fully determined.
Stephan Zednik: by using occurrent - then it may not be finished that makes output in real time that we want to encode. we can't say outputs are fully determined. ←
20:24:16 <tlebo> pgroth: occurrent approach or provenance "has happened, in past"
Paul Groth: occurrent approach or provenance "has happened, in past" ←
20:24:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:24:32 <tlebo> zeknik: occurrent is not too constraining
Stephan Zednik: occurrent is not too constraining ←
20:24:36 <Luc> ack zed
Luc Moreau: ack zed ←
20:24:36 <satya> @stephan - can you please confirm that occurrent definition as you described is from oxford dictionary - since the common interpretation of occurrent in philosophical ontology work - BFO and DOLCE does not specify anything regarding it being in the past
Satya Sahoo: @stephan - can you please confirm that occurrent definition as you described is from oxford dictionary - since the common interpretation of occurrent in philosophical ontology work - BFO and DOLCE does not specify anything regarding it being in the past ←
20:24:44 <tlebo> s/zeknik/zednik/
20:25:01 <tlebo> luc: "occurrent' is very technical.
Luc Moreau: "occurrent' is very technical. ←
20:25:03 <zednik> occurrent |əˈkərənt|
Stephan Zednik: occurrent |əˈkərənt| ←
20:25:03 <zednik> adjective
Stephan Zednik: adjective ←
20:25:03 <zednik> actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical.
Stephan Zednik: actually occurring or observable, not potential or hypothetical. ←
20:25:06 <GK> A process execution has is associated with specific (but maybe unknown) inputs and outputs. Alternative inputs and outputs are not an option. ??
Graham Klyne: A process execution has is associated with specific (but maybe unknown) inputs and outputs. Alternative inputs and outputs are not an option. ?? ←
20:25:09 <tlebo> luc: we are failing by not keeping the term simple.
Luc Moreau: we are failing by not keeping the term simple. ←
20:25:11 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:25:27 <tlebo> luc: push "occurrent' further down in the definition.
Luc Moreau: push "occurrent' further down in the definition. ←
20:25:53 <zednik> has or is
Stephan Zednik: has or is ←
20:26:05 <tlebo> satya: use definition of occurrent instead of stating "occurrent' in the definition.
Satya Sahoo: use definition of occurrent instead of stating "occurrent' in the definition. ←
20:26:19 <GK> Usually, I think provenance *is* about things that *have* happened, but I worry about formalizing that intent.
Graham Klyne: Usually, I think provenance *is* about things that *have* happened, but I worry about formalizing that intent. ←
20:26:20 <tlebo> pgroth: "happened in the past" is a given in what we are describing.
Paul Groth: "happened in the past" is a given in what we are describing. ←
20:27:14 <tlebo> proposed: add statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions."
PROPOSED: add statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions." ←
20:28:45 <tlebo> accepted: issue PE5 is subsumed by statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions."
RESOLVED: issue PE5 is subsumed by statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions." ←
20:29:25 <tlebo> satya: getting incorrect inferences.
Satya Sahoo: getting incorrect inferences. ←
20:29:38 <tlebo> pgroth: constraints can be imposed in the semantics.
Paul Groth: constraints can be imposed in the semantics. ←
20:29:39 <GK> E.g. A test suite for a provenance generating system must necessarily contains statements of provenance about things that will be computed in the future.
Graham Klyne: E.g. A test suite for a provenance generating system must necessarily contains statements of provenance about things that will be computed in the future. ←
20:29:48 <stain> so I would not be allowed to 'fake-run' a workflow and generate a PIL provenance trace of what the provenance would look like? The asserter is here not observing, but predicting. (It might still be to guess what the non-recorded provenance of a previously ran workflow was)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: so I would not be allowed to 'fake-run' a workflow and generate a PIL provenance trace of what the provenance would look like? The asserter is here not observing, but predicting. (It might still be to guess what the non-recorded provenance of a previously ran workflow was) ←
20:29:51 <tlebo> proposed: issue PE6: If we adopt an “OS Style” process model, then a distinction needs to be made between process specification, process, which is an instance of a process specification, and process execution, which is the state of a process with in a time interval, when the activities specified in the process specification take place. This may have been resolve
PROPOSED: issue PE6: If we adopt an “OS Style” process model, then a distinction needs to be made between process specification, process, which is an instance of a process specification, and process execution, which is the state of a process with in a time interval, when the activities specified in the process specification take place. This may have been resolve ←
20:30:39 <tlebo> resolved by the agreement above, where the distinction is partially made (process spec vs process exec), and it was decided that process spec == recipe is out of scope. I will not insist on process (Paolo)
resolved by the agreement above, where the distinction is partially made (process spec vs process exec), and it was decided that process spec == recipe is out of scope. I will not insist on process (Paolo) ←
20:30:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:31:27 <GK> What is "OS level provenance"?
Graham Klyne: What is "OS level provenance"? ←
20:31:52 <tlebo> what is the OS provenance group's name?
what is the OS provenance group's name? ←
20:31:58 <tlebo> at Harvard?
at Harvard? ←
20:32:03 <smiles> @tlebo PASS
Simon Miles: @tlebo PASS ←
20:32:03 <IlkayAltintas> http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/syrah/pass/
Ilkay Altintas: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/syrah/pass/ ←
20:32:14 <tlebo> resolved: issue PE6 is dropped.
RESOLVED: issue PE6 is dropped. ←
20:32:25 <smiles> @GK how files are created, used etc. by OS processes
Simon Miles: @GK how files are created, used etc. by OS processes ←
20:32:27 <tlebo> subtopic: Generation
20:32:54 <GK> @smiles OK, thanks.
Graham Klyne: @smiles OK, thanks. ←
20:34:13 <tlebo> satya: did not include "modification" in process execution.
Satya Sahoo: did not include "modification" in process execution. ←
20:34:21 <stain> a modification is generating a new bob
Stian Soiland-Reyes: a modification is generating a new bob ←
20:35:05 <tlebo> Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process execution creates a new entity state.
Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process execution creates a new entity state. ←
20:35:06 <tlebo> proposed: Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process execution creates a new entity state.
PROPOSED: Generation is the action/transition/event by which a process execution creates a new entity. ←
20:35:45 <GK> s/entity state/entity/
20:36:05 <tlebo> luc: the only way to describe entity state is via BOBs
Luc Moreau: the only way to describe entity state is via BOBs ←
20:36:25 <ericP> q+ to ask why multiple states
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask why multiple states ←
20:36:36 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: process execution without entity states? group - yes. 0 or more.
Khalid Belhajjame: process execution without entity states? group - yes. 0 or more. ←
20:37:11 <tlebo> paulo: database queried that does not modify database.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: database queried that does not modify database. ←
20:37:44 <GK> We have a definition here that mentions "entity states", but I don't know what that is distinct from an "entity"
Graham Klyne: We have a definition here that mentions "entity states", but I don't know what that is distinct from an "entity" ←
20:37:44 <stain> then database was used, and query result was generated
Stian Soiland-Reyes: then database was used, and query result was generated ←
20:38:03 <stain> @GK I think entity state means Bob - but not sure
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK I think entity state means Bob - but not sure ←
20:38:14 <stain> I think that might be our bob
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think that might be our bob ←
20:38:20 <tlebo> BOB is a placeholder for how we are describing entitie states.
BOB is a placeholder for how we are describing entitie states. ←
20:38:22 <zednik> @stain, I think so too. entity state is our BOB
Stephan Zednik: @stain, I think so too. entity state is our BOB ←
20:38:29 <GK> @stain: that doesn't work: BOB is a description of an entity
Graham Klyne: @stain: that doesn't work: BOB is a description of an entity ←
20:38:33 <tlebo> (was called Thing before today, which described Stuffs)
(was called Thing before today, which described Stuffs) ←
20:38:35 <stain> ARE YOU HIM?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ARE YOU HIM? ←
20:39:09 <GK> I understood BOB to describe *entities*
Graham Klyne: I understood BOB to describe *entities* ←
20:39:09 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
20:39:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:40:22 <tlebo> proposal: generation issue # G1 - Whether generation should be modelled as a concept itself or as a relationship between concepts, such as a process execution and a thing. This issue is raised based on the initial definitions raised by Jun. However, Luc did raise that "Whether this is a concept or a relationship seems to me more relevant to the formalization o
PROPOSED: generation issue # G1 - Whether generation should be modelled as a concept itself or as a relationship between concepts, such as a process execution and a thing. This issue is raised based on the initial definitions raised by Jun. However, Luc did raise that "Whether this is a concept or a relationship seems to me more relevant to the formalization o ←
20:40:58 <zednik> if it is a concept itself, what does it entail? what are the properties/relationships associated with a Generation concept?
Stephan Zednik: if it is a concept itself, what does it entail? what are the properties/relationships associated with a Generation concept? ←
20:41:20 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
20:41:23 <stain> @GK: *I* think BOB is what allows us to talk about a certain entity state. So it's more like a proxy, symlink, smart query, view - when we say "BOB x is blah" it means "Entity e, within the description of BOB (the blue shirt in the office) - is blah
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK: *I* think BOB is what allows us to talk about a certain entity state. So it's more like a proxy, symlink, smart query, view - when we say "BOB x is blah" it means "Entity e, within the description of BOB (the blue shirt in the office) - is blah ←
20:41:55 <stain> @zednik Agent, Process Execution, BOB
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @zednik Agent, Process Execution, BOB ←
20:42:52 <tlebo> BOB a placeholder for Thing/Description/Characterization/EntityDescription/StateDescription
BOB a placeholder for Thing/Description/Characterization/EntityDescription/StateDescription ←
20:44:12 <tlebo> luc: issues on definitions are First In First Out.
Luc Moreau: issues on definitions are First In First Out. ←
20:44:42 <Deborah> +q
Deborah McGuinness: +q ←
20:44:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:45:44 <tlebo> ericp: getting to new stateS. why plural?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: getting to new stateS. why plural? ←
20:46:31 <Luc> ack eri
Luc Moreau: ack eri ←
20:46:31 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask why multiple states
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask why multiple states ←
20:46:40 <Luc> ack smiles
Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←
20:46:40 <tlebo> ericp: a process can influence the states of one or more thing.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: a process can influence the states of one or more thing. ←
20:46:45 <tlebo> smiles: should be a relation, not a concept.
Simon Miles: should be a relation, not a concept. ←
20:47:09 <tlebo> smiles: generation should be defined in terms of process execution
Simon Miles: generation should be defined in terms of process execution ←
20:47:40 <pgroth> q+ to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP
Paul Groth: q+ to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP ←
20:47:51 <tlebo> luc: want to relate events to one another.
Luc Moreau: want to relate events to one another. ←
20:47:59 <stain> it was raised on the mailing list that one want to stop somewhere. I don't want to specify how my file system driver found the right sectors on the disk - but might want to talk about what was generated in the end.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it was raised on the mailing list that one want to stop somewhere. I don't want to specify how my file system driver found the right sectors on the disk - but might want to talk about what was generated in the end. ←
20:48:32 <tlebo> Generation is a time constraint on process execution/ activity.
Generation is a time constraint on process execution/ activity. ←
20:49:32 <tlebo> (events and activities? are these synonyms for the True concepts?)
(events and activities? are these synonyms for the True concepts?) ←
20:50:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:50:18 <tlebo> smiles: temporal ordering of process executions helps avoid Activities Generation Events.
Simon Miles: temporal ordering of process executions helps avoid Activities Generation Events. ←
20:50:45 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
20:50:56 <tlebo> zednik: repeating smiles Generation overlapping with Process Execution.
Stephan Zednik: repeating smiles Generation overlapping with Process Execution. ←
20:50:57 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
20:51:03 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
20:51:04 <Luc> ack qweb
Luc Moreau: ack qweb ←
20:51:42 <tlebo> deborah: where do we place new issues? place it onto http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions after/during F2F meeting.
Deborah McGuinness: where do we place new issues? place it onto http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions after/during F2F meeting. ←
20:52:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:53:50 <tlebo> pgroth: relationship in natural language vs. formal languages.
Paul Groth: relationship in natural language vs. formal languages. ←
20:54:17 <GK> I think the formal term here is "relation"
Graham Klyne: I think the formal term here is "relation" ←
20:54:47 <stain> +1 - we don't want to say it's NOT a concept.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 - we don't want to say it's NOT a concept. ←
20:54:47 <tlebo> pgroth: conceptual relationship vs. modeling it as a Concept/Relationship in a logical model of your choice.
Paul Groth: conceptual relationship vs. modeling it as a Concept/Relationship in a logical model of your choice. ←
20:54:55 <zednik> conceptual relationship does not entail rdf:Property
Stephan Zednik: conceptual relationship does not entail rdf:Property ←
20:55:09 <stain> I think if we agree on this, then we can say it's a relationship
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think if we agree on this, then we can say it's a relationship ←
20:55:19 <GK> (In RDF formal semantics, a property has an associated relation over pairs of concepts from the domain of discourse.)
Graham Klyne: (In RDF formal semantics, a property has an associated relation over pairs of concepts from the domain of discourse.) ←
20:55:33 <tlebo> luc: what does a conceptual relationship?
Luc Moreau: what does a conceptual relationship? ←
20:55:51 <stain> @Paolo: Exactly - so it can't just be dangling alone which is my worry
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Paolo: Exactly - so it can't just be dangling alone which is my worry ←
20:55:53 <tlebo> paolo: relationship depends on other primary concepts. (mathematically)
Paolo Missier: relationship depends on other primary concepts. (mathematically) ←
20:56:17 <tlebo> (rdf:Property is a good smiley)
(rdf:Property is a good smiley) ←
20:56:41 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
20:56:41 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to make the point that there's a difference between relationship and RELATIONSHIP ←
20:56:44 <tlebo> paolo: relation does not stand on it's own.
Paolo Missier: relation does not stand on it's own. ←
20:57:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:57:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:58:14 <tlebo> smiles: does not use Event/Transition; just describe relationships among the entities.
Simon Miles: does not use Event/Transition; just describe relationships among the entities. ←
20:58:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:58:48 <Luc> ack stain
Luc Moreau: ack stain ←
20:59:03 <GK> Generation can quite reasonably be a relation between process executions and entities.
Graham Klyne: Generation can quite reasonably be a relation between process executions and entities. ←
20:59:59 <GK> But *instances* of a relation can be reified.
Graham Klyne: But *instances* of a relation can be reified. ←
21:00:15 <tlebo> pgroth: Generation as a proxy for Event.
Paul Groth: Generation as a proxy for Event. ←
21:00:47 <GK> ... as members of a class that might be caled "Events". I think there is no dichotomy here.
Graham Klyne: ... as members of a class that might be caled "Events". I think there is no dichotomy here. ←
21:02:06 <tlebo> pgroth: main concern of group is that Generation is being confused with Process Execution.
Paul Groth: main concern of group is that Generation is being confused with Process Execution. ←
21:02:19 <JimMcCusker> +q
James McCusker: +q ←
21:03:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:04:04 <GK> I think the definitions are dual.
Graham Klyne: I think the definitions are dual. ←
21:04:52 <stain> I don't see why two definitions can't refer to each-other.. in fact if they don't, then you might wander what makes PIL a model/language instead of just a vocabulary
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I don't see why two definitions can't refer to each-other.. in fact if they don't, then you might wander what makes PIL a model/language instead of just a vocabulary ←
21:06:31 <smiles> @stain I agree there's no absolute reason why not, but still it can make the definitions simpler to refer to less other things that need to be looked up
Simon Miles: @stain I agree there's no absolute reason why not, but still it can make the definitions simpler to refer to less other things that need to be looked up ←
21:06:32 <tlebo> q+
q+ ←
21:07:07 <Paolo_> @stian they seem to be redundant in the way they overlap....
Paolo Missier: @stian they seem to be redundant in the way they overlap.... ←
21:07:17 <stain> strip one of them down then
Stian Soiland-Reyes: strip one of them down then ←
21:07:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:07:25 <Paolo_> New version just came up on the page. Still under discussion
Paolo Missier: New version just came up on the page. Still under discussion ←
21:07:33 <stain> wich page?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: wich page? ←
21:08:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:08:47 <Luc> ack Jim
Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←
21:09:03 <smiles> @stain http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions
Simon Miles: @stain http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←
21:09:31 <tlebo> process execution: 0..* ins, a middle, 0..* outs
process execution: 0..* ins, a middle, 0..* outs ←
21:09:42 <tlebo> ... generation: a middle and 1 out
... generation: a middle and 1 out ←
21:09:56 <tlebo> (will get to) use: 1 in and a middle
(will get to) use: 1 in and a middle ←
21:11:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:12:57 <tlebo> why isn't a "use" and "generation" a process execution missing some bits?
why isn't a "use" and "generation" a process execution missing some bits? ←
21:14:41 <JimMcCusker> +q
James McCusker: +q ←
21:14:49 <pgroth> ack telco
Paul Groth: ack telco ←
21:14:54 <Luc> ack tlebo
Luc Moreau: ack tlebo ←
21:14:57 <pgroth> ack Jim
Paul Groth: ack Jim ←
21:14:58 <Luc> ack Jim
Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←
21:15:12 <stain> @tlebo +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo +1 ←
21:18:38 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
21:19:10 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
21:19:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
21:19:28 <stain> I think we might need to talk about Collections or composition when talking about multiple processes generating one entity state
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think we might need to talk about Collections or composition when talking about multiple processes generating one entity state ←
21:20:00 <tlebo> resolved: issue G1; we have new definitions
RESOLVED: issue G1; we have new definitions ←
21:20:37 <tlebo> resolved: all generation issues.
RESOLVED: all generation issues. ←
21:21:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:21:16 <tlebo> proposed: use issue U1: For a thing X to be used by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion): X was generated before its use Use occurs after P's beginning and before P's end
PROPOSED: use issue U1: For a thing X to be used by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion): X was generated before its use Use occurs after P's beginning and before P's end ←
21:22:02 <tlebo> ... use: Use is the consumption of an entity state by a process execution.
... use: Use is the consumption of an entity state by a process execution. ←
21:22:14 <tlebo> can we consume entityStates multiple times?
can we consume entityStates multiple times? ←
21:22:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:22:23 <tlebo> PDFs don't get consumed by being printed.
PDFs don't get consumed by being printed. ←
21:22:41 <tlebo> "involved"
"involved" ←
21:22:42 <tlebo> ?
? ←
21:23:36 <zednik> does consumption imply "using up" or destroying the BOB?
Stephan Zednik: does consumption imply "using up" or destroying the BOB? ←
21:23:45 <stain> 'consumed' also sounds like it's the whole thing.. so what about Paolo's database example?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 'consumed' also sounds like it's the whole thing.. so what about Paolo's database example? ←
21:23:52 <tlebo> (btw, BOB is leading to be renamed EntityState)
(btw, BOB is leading to be renamed EntityState) ←
21:24:00 <stain> tlebo: YAAY
Timothy Lebo: YAAY [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
21:24:05 <zednik> consumption |kənˈsəm(p) sh ən|
Stephan Zednik: consumption |kənˈsəm(p) sh ən| ←
21:24:05 <zednik> noun
Stephan Zednik: noun ←
21:24:05 <zednik> 1 the using up of a resource
Stephan Zednik: 1 the using up of a resource ←
21:24:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:25:03 <tlebo> q+ to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume.
q+ to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume. ←
21:25:19 <stain> what if we say something like "utilised (as e.g. input, source) by process execution"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what if we say something like "utilised (as e.g. input, source) by process execution" ←
21:25:29 <stain> @tlebo - soudns very active - like the agent
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo - soudns very active - like the agent ←
21:25:34 <stain> who is involved iwth the PE
Stian Soiland-Reyes: who is involved iwth the PE ←
21:25:47 <tlebo> not sure why "involves" implies agency.
not sure why "involves" implies agency. ←
21:25:58 <tlebo> my keyboard involves this text string.
my keyboard involves this text string. ←
21:26:08 <tlebo> (other way around)
(other way around) ←
21:26:19 <tlebo> this text string involves my keyboard.
this text string involves my keyboard. ←
21:26:23 <stain> do you involve your car when going to work? It's not like you ask if it wants to come along.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: do you involve your car when going to work? It's not like you ask if it wants to come along. ←
21:26:35 <tlebo> I'd say "use" implies too much agency.
I'd say "use" implies too much agency. ←
21:26:45 <JimMcCusker> I think we made "participate" the top level relation, which subsumes "use" and "consume".
James McCusker: I think we made "participate" the top level relation, which subsumes "use" and "consume". ←
21:26:50 <satya> q?
Satya Sahoo: q? ←
21:26:51 <stain> @tlebo - oo.. I.. agree
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo - oo.. I.. agree ←
21:27:01 <tlebo> q+ to ask that we use the q
q+ to ask that we use the q ←
21:27:05 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
21:27:16 <zednik> @JimMcCusker participate was top level for agents
Stephan Zednik: @JimMcCusker participate was top level for agents ←
21:27:32 <JimMcCusker> right
James McCusker: right ←
21:27:34 <JimMcCusker> sorry
James McCusker: sorry ←
21:27:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:28:03 <Luc> ack tlebo
Luc Moreau: ack tlebo ←
21:28:03 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume. and to ask that we use the q
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to suggest "involves" instead of use/consume. and to ask that we use the q ←
21:28:22 <zednik> @JimMcCusker consumed was specialization of used (and implied destruction)
Stephan Zednik: @JimMcCusker consumed was specialization of used (and implied destruction) ←
21:28:40 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
21:28:48 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
21:28:59 <zednik> @JimMcCusker we also had influenced...
Stephan Zednik: @JimMcCusker we also had influenced... ←
21:29:04 <stain> @tlebo 'involves' would allow for a process execution to also involve a recipe/perl script, etc. (might be good - but less specific than use)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo 'involves' would allow for a process execution to also involve a recipe/perl script, etc. (might be good - but less specific than use) ←
21:29:22 <tlebo> satya: EntityState to exist for Process Execution to happen?
Satya Sahoo: EntityState to exist for Process Execution to happen? ←
21:29:36 <IlkayAltintas> +q
Ilkay Altintas: +q ←
21:30:22 <stain> +1 +1 +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 +1 +1 ←
21:30:28 <stain> we're recording what DID happen
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we're recording what DID happen ←
21:31:01 <tlebo> what is @stain +1'ing?
what is @stain +1'ing? ←
21:31:02 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
21:31:22 <tlebo> which entity was used to generate which entity is lost.
which entity was used to generate which entity is lost. ←
21:31:27 <Paolo_> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
21:31:31 <Luc> ack Ilk
Luc Moreau: ack Ilk ←
21:32:09 <tlebo> issue: we lose which entity was used to generate which entity.
ISSUE: we lose which entity was used to generate which entity. ←
21:32:09 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - We lose which entity was used to generate which entity. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/22/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-22 - We lose which entity was used to generate which entity. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/22/edit . ←
21:32:29 <Luc> ack Pao
Luc Moreau: ack Pao ←
21:33:35 <tlebo> issue: create definition of involve to replace Use
ISSUE: create definition of involve to replace Use ←
21:33:35 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-23 - Create definition of involve to replace Use ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/23/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-23 - Create definition of involve to replace Use ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/23/edit . ←
21:35:14 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:35:47 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:36:04 <tlebo> paolo: we should have a collection of Use, Involves - not a replacement.
Paolo Missier: we should have a collection of Use, Involves - not a replacement. ←
21:37:43 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
21:39:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:39:37 <Paolo_> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
21:39:50 <tlebo> proposed: Generation issue # G2 - Should we also mention in the definition that, for a thing X to be generated by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion): X must be something that did not exist before generation time (this means that nothing had the thing's identity before that time) generation occurs after P's beginning and be
PROPOSED: Generation issue # G2 - Should we also mention in the definition that, for a thing X to be generated by a process execution P, the following must hold (see discussion): X must be something that did not exist before generation time (this means that nothing had the thing's identity before that time) generation occurs after P's beginning and be ←
21:40:50 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:40:56 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
21:41:34 <tlebo> (how did we get back to Generation issues? I thought we skipped them intentionally)
(how did we get back to Generation issues? I thought we skipped them intentionally) ←
21:42:17 <tlebo> paolo: functional flavor of Generation issue 2.3 P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict)
Paolo Missier: functional flavor of Generation ISSUE-2.3 P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict) ←
21:42:39 <tlebo> resolved Generation 2.3 is too strong P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict)
resolved Generation 2.3 is too strong P and things used by P determine the values of X's invariant properties, but not the values of variant properties (too(?) strict) ←
21:42:39 <GK> I need to break off now. See/hear you tomorrow.
Graham Klyne: I need to break off now. See/hear you tomorrow. ←
21:42:40 <smiles> @tlebo we intended to skip just subpoints 2.1 and 2.2 (not 2.3 and 2.4)
Simon Miles: @tlebo we intended to skip just subpoints 2.1 and 2.2 (not 2.3 and 2.4) ←
21:42:47 <stain> GK - nightie!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: GK - nightie! ←
21:43:03 <Luc> thanks Graham
Luc Moreau: thanks Graham ←
21:43:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:43:07 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
21:43:08 <Paulo> q+
21:43:16 <Luc> ack Paolo
Luc Moreau: ack Paolo ←
21:43:25 <tlebo> proposed: Generation issue G2.4
PROPOSED: Generation issue G2.4 ←
21:43:36 <tlebo> P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)
P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict) ←
21:44:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:44:04 <Luc> ack paul
Luc Moreau: ack paul ←
21:45:23 <tlebo> luc: process execution or entities that went into process execution can be used to understand aspect of an entitystate output
Luc Moreau: process execution or entities that went into process execution can be used to understand aspect of an entitystate output ←
21:45:58 <tlebo> open world assumption of describing the process execution or inputs.
open world assumption of describing the process execution or inputs. ←
21:46:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:47:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:47:21 <tlebo> issue: semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)"
ISSUE: semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)" ←
21:47:21 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-24 - Semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)" ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/24/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-24 - Semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)" ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/24/edit . ←
21:54:13 <Zakim> -stain
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
<luc>Subtopic: Derivation
21:56:59 <tlebo> proposed: Derivation expresses that some entity is transformed from, created from, or affected by an other entity. An entity state B is derived from an entity state A if the values of some properties of B are at least partially determined by the values of some properties of A.
PROPOSED: Derivation expresses that some entity is transformed from, created from, or affected by an other entity. An entity state B is derived from an entity state A if the values of some properties of B are at least partially determined by the values of some properties of A. ←
21:57:26 <tlebo> smiles: some connection needs to be there.
Simon Miles: some connection needs to be there. ←
21:59:23 <tlebo> jcheney: SOME values need to overlap across EntityStates connected with a Derivation.
James Cheney: SOME values need to overlap across EntityStates connected with a Derivation. ←
21:59:25 <Paulo> q+
22:01:07 <tlebo> issue: semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2
ISSUE: semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2 ←
22:01:07 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-25 - Semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/25/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-25 - Semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/25/edit . ←
22:01:30 <tlebo> proposed: Derivation issue # D3 Does derivation include control dependency? If so, is this reflected in this definition
PROPOSED: Derivation issue # D3 Does derivation include control dependency? If so, is this reflected in this definition ←
22:03:15 <tlebo> khalidbelhajjame: A, B, threshold example.
Khalid Belhajjame: A, B, threshold example. ←
22:03:20 <tlebo> luc: division example.
Luc Moreau: division example. ←
22:04:05 <tlebo> determined by the presence of a value that does NOT affect it's result
determined by the presence of a value that does NOT affect it's result ←
22:04:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:04:28 <tlebo> triggered execution but not involved (did not influence it's result other than starting it)
triggered execution but not involved (did not influence it's result other than starting it) ←
22:04:42 <tlebo> "triggering" is a kind of "use"
"triggering" is a kind of "use" ←
22:05:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:05:19 <tlebo> smiles: represent it with an invariant property
Simon Miles: represent it with an invariant property ←
22:05:46 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
22:05:47 <tlebo> ice sculpture example.
ice sculpture example. ←
22:05:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:05:58 <tlebo> photo of ice sculpture
photo of ice sculpture ←
22:06:13 <tlebo> ice sculpture does not exist, but is relevant to the derivation of the photo.
ice sculpture does not exist, but is relevant to the derivation of the photo. ←
22:07:12 <tlebo> paulo: redundancy of something-already-used. derived from something can be inferred from knowing the process execution (~)
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: redundancy of something-already-used. derived from something can be inferred from knowing the process execution (~) ←
22:07:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:07:33 <Luc> ack Paulo
Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←
22:08:12 <tlebo> smiles derived from Louis XIV
smiles derived from Louis XIV ←
22:09:48 <tlebo> luc: derivation is trying to describe the info flow within the black box of the process execution.
Luc Moreau: derivation is trying to describe the info flow within the black box of the process execution. ←
22:10:05 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:10:09 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
22:10:46 <tlebo> luc: an output may have been created before the input to the process was used.
Luc Moreau: an output may have been created before the input to the process was used. ←
22:11:33 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
22:11:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:12:48 <tlebo> satya: apples and oranges. some want to describe the same thing from either of two perspectives.
Satya Sahoo: apples and oranges. some want to describe the same thing from either of two perspectives. ←
22:13:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:13:31 <tlebo> knowing the relationship between inputs and outputs VS NOT knowing the relationship.
knowing the relationship between inputs and outputs VS NOT knowing the relationship. ←
22:13:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:14:26 <tlebo> zednik: example - sci process that reads docs in directory, new file for each found and craeting arvhive file of all files it read. 500 files at a time.
Stephan Zednik: example - sci process that reads docs in directory, new file for each found and craeting arvhive file of all files it read. 500 files at a time. ←
22:14:37 <tlebo> model 500 or model 1
model 500 or model 1 ←
22:14:45 <tlebo> scientists don't care about 500 process executions.
scientists don't care about 500 process executions. ←
22:14:56 <tlebo> "procedure they understand" 500 in 500 out
"procedure they understand" 500 in 500 out ←
22:14:58 <Deborah> q?
Deborah McGuinness: q? ←
22:15:07 <Deborah> q+ (deborah)
Deborah McGuinness: q+ (deborah) ←
22:15:07 <tlebo> but we lose the derivation from one of the 500 to one of the 500.
but we lose the derivation from one of the 500 to one of the 500. ←
22:15:38 <tlebo> paulo: figuring out what went wrong when it went wrong.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: figuring out what went wrong when it went wrong. ←
22:15:57 <tlebo> pgroth: people kind of like derivation notions (we've seen from experience)
Paul Groth: people kind of like derivation notions (we've seen from experience) ←
22:16:16 <JimMcCusker> FYI, it's 6:15
James McCusker: FYI, it's 6:15 ←
22:16:21 <tlebo> pgroth: some people like talking about process executions (a different perspective)
Paul Groth: some people like talking about process executions (a different perspective) ←
22:16:26 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:16:27 <tlebo> +1 6:15
+1 6:15 ←
22:16:29 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
22:16:35 <Luc> ack zednik
Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←
22:17:45 <tlebo> deborah: w.r.t paulo's derivation issue. we don't need any particular granularity. we should permit any granularity. people want to see the provenance at differing granularities.
Deborah McGuinness: w.r.t paulo's derivation issue. we don't need any particular granularity. we should permit any granularity. people want to see the provenance at differing granularities. ←
22:17:57 <Paulo> q+
22:18:21 <tlebo> luc: @paulo re redundancy.
Luc Moreau: @paulo re redundancy. ←
22:18:40 <tlebo> paulo: use and Generates are not nec. the way they are b/c they need more specific meanings towards Derivation.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: use and Generates are not nec. the way they are b/c they need more specific meanings towards Derivation. ←
22:19:13 <tlebo> luc: some have process view of word, some have derivation view of the world.
Luc Moreau: some have process view of word, some have derivation view of the world. ←
22:19:22 <tlebo> use/generation is the process view.
use/generation is the process view. ←
22:19:36 <tlebo> derivation connects the data
derivation connects the data ←
22:19:48 <tlebo> luc: knowing inputs and outputs DOES NOT imply derivation.
Luc Moreau: knowing inputs and outputs DOES NOT imply derivation. ←
22:20:23 <zednik> +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality
Stephan Zednik: +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality ←
22:20:39 <JimMcCusker> +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality
James McCusker: +1 knowing inputs/outputs does not imply derivation nor casuality ←
22:21:31 <tlebo> paulo: scientists do not know the process of how things are created, but they want to have process about the data.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: scientists do not know the process of how things are created, but they want to have process about the data. ←
22:21:55 <tlebo> people like processes, some like data views
people like processes, some like data views ←
22:22:41 <tlebo> jcheney: children building rockets need calculus - if they want to learn rocket building learn calculus.
James Cheney: children building rockets need calculus - if they want to learn rocket building learn calculus. ←
22:23:24 <tlebo> luc: PASS harvard knows the processes and inputs but DO NOT know the derivation among the ins and outs.
Luc Moreau: PASS harvard knows the processes and inputs but DO NOT know the derivation among the ins and outs. ←
22:25:15 <tlebo> derivation is defined independently of inputs and outputs (by design)
derivation is defined independently of inputs and outputs (by design) ←
22:25:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:26:25 <pgroth> ack de
Paul Groth: ack de ←
22:26:35 <pgroth> ack (deborah)
Paul Groth: ack (deborah) ←
22:26:39 <pgroth> ack Paulo
Paul Groth: ack Paulo ←
22:27:00 <JimMcCusker> If you want to find out what process was used to derive b from a, given that b derived from a, look for a process that has a as an input and b as an output.
James McCusker: If you want to find out what process was used to derive b from a, given that b derived from a, look for a process that has a as an input and b as an output. ←
22:27:13 <tlebo> paulo: dataset interpolated to get uniform distribution of the data.
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: dataset interpolated to get uniform distribution of the data. ←
22:27:28 <tlebo> a parameter is used and affects the interpolation
a parameter is used and affects the interpolation ←
22:27:31 <zednik> definition of dataset is not consistent among science communitites
Stephan Zednik: definition of dataset is not consistent among science communitites ←
22:28:26 <tlebo> process view does NOT say output depends on inputs. THEN assert derivation associating the interpolation to the input data and the parameter.
process view does NOT say output depends on inputs. THEN assert derivation associating the interpolation to the input data and the parameter. ←
22:28:44 <tlebo> (is there a Recipe on a Derivation?)
(is there a Recipe on a Derivation?) ←
22:29:41 <JimMcCusker> no, but you can look up what recipe was used as such in a process that has the inputs and outputs that were derived from each other.
James McCusker: no, but you can look up what recipe was used as such in a process that has the inputs and outputs that were derived from each other. ←
22:29:48 <Luc> Time to go to the restaurant!!!
Luc Moreau: Time to go to the restaurant!!! ←
22:30:03 <Luc> topic of discussion: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions
Luc Moreau: topic of discussion: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions ←
22:31:04 <tlebo> rrsagent, set log public
rrsagent, set log public ←
22:31:09 <tlebo> rrsagent, draft minutes
rrsagent, draft minutes ←
22:31:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html tlebo
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html tlebo ←
22:31:14 <tlebo> trackbot, end telcon
trackbot, end telcon ←
22:31:14 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
22:31:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.715.aaaa, Meeting_Room, stain, zednik, GK, [ISI], Lena, +1.561.216.aadd, +1.858.210.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.715.aaaa, Meeting_Room, stain, zednik, GK, [ISI], Lena, +1.561.216.aadd, +1.858.210.aaee ←
22:31:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
22:31:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
22:31:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-actions.rdf : ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [1]
ACTION: ericstephan to create a plan to deliver a connection report. Plan will include a timetable, a list of connections, and individuals who will deliver to the connection. [1] ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-33-21
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-33-21 ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report [2]
ACTION: zednik to create a plan for a implementation report [2] ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-43-16
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-43-16 ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire. [3]
ACTION: zednik to write second iteration of the questionnaire. [3] ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-44-14
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T18-44-14 ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [4]
ACTION: Paulo to document definition of "process execution" and "recipe" and provide to group. [4] ←
22:31:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T20-05-37
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc#T20-05-37 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#8) generated 2011-07-13 14:37:14 UTC by 'unknown', comments: None