Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 06 July 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable
Seen
Deborah McGuinness, Eric Stephan, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Graham Klyne, Helena Deus, Ilkay Altintas, James McCusker, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Ryan Golden, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Vinh Nguyen, Yolanda Gil
Guests
Eric Prud'hommeaux
Chair
Luc Moreau, Paul Groth
Scribe
Simon Miles, Eric Stephan, James McCusker, Timothy Lebo
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. minutes of 30 Jun telecon link
  2. For the first draft, we'll use "ENTITY" instead of "stuff".... link
  3. issue PE1 is done. link
  4. issue PE3. A process specification can be either pre-defined or not. (Proposed by Khalid on 2011-05-31) link
  5. issue PE4 is N/A: A process execution may consume and/or generate IVPTs. (Proposed by Paolo on 2011-05-20) link
  6. 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.) link
  7. issue PE5 is subsumed by statement "provenance describes things that happened in the past. this is assumed for all remaining definitions." link
  8. issue PE6 is dropped. link
  9. issue G1; we have new definitions link
  10. all generation issues. link
Topics
  1. Introduction and Admin issues

    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.

  2. Session 1: Model Task Force

    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.

  3. Session 2: Model Task Force

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. Session 4: Model TF

    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).

    1. Process Execution

    2. Generation

    3. Derivation

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

1. 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

2. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

3. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: +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

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: +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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

4. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

5. 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

5.1. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

5.2. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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

5.3. 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: 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