17:31:05 <Luc> SCRIBE:  JimMcCusker

17:31:35 <pgroth> 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.

17:31:49 <Deborah> if remote people dropped off, now is a good time to call back in

17:32:01 <pgroth> cool tle

17:32:08 <pgroth> cool tlebo

17:32:14 <Zakim> +[ISI]

17:32:19 <pgroth> i think there may be another name

17:33:00 <pgroth> 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.

17:34:15 <smiles> @JimMcCusker agreed

17:34:36 <Zakim> +zednik

17:35:06 <Deborah> we are getting the presentation up....

17:35:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Connection TF

17:38:37 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: 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.

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.

17:43:15 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau, Paul Groth

17:44:01 <Deborah> link to analytic provenance community eric mentioned - http://vacommunity.org/AnalyticProvenanceWorkshop

17:44:15 <JimMcCusker> thnx

17:45:56 <Luc> q?

17:46:08 <smiles> 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.

17:47:15 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Coordination: What do other task forces need from us? When should the task forces meet with us?

17:47:16 <Luc> q?

17:47:39 <Luc> ack smiles

17:48:25 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Conflict between adoption and implementation specific issues. The Conn. TF is there to define the relationships.

17:48:47 <Paolo> Q+

17:48:51 <JimMcCusker> smiles: Concept of profiles, but maybe that's too heavyweight?

17:48:54 <Luc> q?

17:49:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Communities need to be able to explain in their own language, but who does the formal connections?

17:50:18 <pgroth> +q

17:50:30 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Analytic Provenance still in early stages, but maybe they might be a first adopter.

17:50:57 <Luc> q?

17:51:05 <JimMcCusker> smiles: The bridge is being made by the WG TF?

17:51:13 <Luc> ack Paolo

17:51:14 <Deborah> +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

17:51:25 <Deborah> whops +q (deborah)

17:51:30 <Paulo> q+

17:51:33 <JimMcCusker> paolo: is this where we talk about extension mechanisms?

17:51:56 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: extension or mapping into PIL.

17:52:02 <Luc> ack pgroth

17:52:16 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: We established the TF to make sure we get wide adoption.

17:53:07 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: three levels: adoption, mapping, and extension.

17:53:30 <Luc> q?

17:53:31 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: 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?

17:54:45 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Some goals include hopefully provide mappings on standards like DC.

17:54:53 <tlebo> best link for DC's provenance definitions?

17:54:59 <tlebo> dublin core's

17:55:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

17:55:51 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: prov-xg did an excellent job identifying existing provenance.

17:55:57 <IlkayAltintas> +q

17:55:59 <satya> 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.

17:56:08 <Luc> ack pgroth

17:56:24 <YolandaGil> 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.

17:57:12 <Luc> 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.

17:57:58 <satya> q+ to Deborah's point

17:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.561.216.aadd

17:58:48 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: start with the uncontroversial mappings to experiment.

17:59:25 <Luc> 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.

18:01:04 <JimMcCusker> paulo: many existing concepts in e science is already provenance.

18:01:19 <JimMcCusker> +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.

18:02:25 <Luc> 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)

18:02:53 <Zakim> - +1.561.216.aadd

18:03:11 <JimMcCusker> -q

18:03:23 <Zakim> + +1.858.210.aaee

18:04:24 <JimMcCusker> khalidbelhajjame: Mappings could help us identify issues in modeling.

18:04:40 <Luc> ack khalidbelhajjame

18:04:41 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?

18:04:47 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: 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%)

18:05:13 <JimMcCusker> Luc: To some extent, we will do this.

18:05:14 <pgroth> where is this idea of mappings coming from?

18:05:24 <Luc> ack IlkayAltintas

18:05:29 <Paolo> q?

18:05:46 <Luc> ack YolandaGil

18:05:53 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: Likes the 3 categories of D6, and need to be driven by those sort of tasks.

18:06:59 <Luc> q?

18:07:03 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: we will fail the group if we don't link to other groups within W3C.

18:07:39 <Zakim> - +1.858.210.aaee

18:08:31 <JimMcCusker> YolandaGil: in science communities, questions about what scientifically driven folks are participating.

18:08:48 <Luc> ack satya

18:08:48 <Zakim> satya, you wanted to Deborah's point

18:08:58 <JimMcCusker> satya: We won't have time to address all concerns of communities.

18:09:14 <Luc> 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.

18:09:41 <satya> q-

18:09:42 <JimMcCusker> satya: 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

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)

18:10:35 <Zakim> +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.

18:13:28 <JimMcCusker> Impl Questionnaire URL: http://goo.gl/rHxAg

18:15:13 <JimMcCusker> 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)

18:15:38 <JimMcCusker> Most interest in toolkits in Java

18:15:43 <stain> <div class="provenance"> !

18:16:04 <Luc> q?

18:16:38 <JimMcCusker> +q

18:17:14 <stain> .. but note that almost 60% are using something else than Java (as well)

18:17:42 <Paolo_> Q?

18:17:46 <Luc> q?

18:17:54 <Luc> ack JimMcCusker

18:18:01 <Paolo_> Q?

18:18:29 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker: I will reach out to caBIG for additional feedback using questionnaire.

18:18:39 <JimMcCusker> Luc: What's next?

18:19:42 <YolandaGil> what is the third level?  it's sooo hard to hear...

18:20:07 <pgroth> scientific communities

18:20:10 <YolandaGil> ah, yes, got it all!

18:20:13 <YolandaGil> thanks!

18:20:37 <JimMcCusker> Luc: 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

18:21:29 <pgroth> +q

18:21:47 <JimMcCusker> Luc: what sort of coordination is expected?

18:22:04 <JimMcCusker> sandro: whatever is in the charter.

18:23:08 <JimMcCusker> deborah: What about open govt data?

18:23:15 <Zakim> -Lena

18:23:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: their charter mentions prov-wg, so there is a connection.

18:24:36 <pgroth> q+

18:25:46 <ericstephan> q+

18:26:01 <JimMcCusker> Luc: JimMcCusker, Lena, and satya should provide interfaces with HCLS.

18:26:36 <Luc> q?

18:26:40 <Luc> 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!

18:27:19 <sandro> +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.

18:27:26 <Luc> we also have a rep of the OGC consortium in the WG

18:27:40 <YolandaGil> yes, Carl Reed

18:27:56 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: Until then, we make sure we have the right framework in place to introduce the PIL.

18:28:08 <Luc> q?

18:29:19 <Luc> 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.

18:30:12 <JimMcCusker> ericstephan: Would cataloging possible early adopters be a useful product?

18:31:16 <Paolo> q+

18:31:27 <Lena> (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?

18:32:01 <pgroth> 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 :)

18:32:58 <Zakim> +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.

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].

18:33:27 <Luc> 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.

18:33:30 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Plan

18:35:34 <JimMcCusker> 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

18:35:51 <zednik> q+

18:36:17 <Luc> ack paolo

18:36:38 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: 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

18:37:41 <JimMcCusker> Paulo: please take note of community milestones.

18:37:42 <Luc> 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!

18:38:27 <Lena> (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.

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)

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)

18:41:58 <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

18:42:48 <Luc> q?

18:42:53 <zednik> q-

18:42:53 <Luc> ack zednik

18:43:16 <JimMcCusker> 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].

18:43:50 <JimMcCusker> Note actual due date for ACTION-14 is 2011-07-14.

18:44:14 <JimMcCusker> 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].

18:44:27 <Luc> q?

18:44:43 <JimMcCusker> Luc: Test cases and use cases.

18:45:22 <Luc> q?

18:45:30 <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!

18:46:20 <JimMcCusker> jcheney: split use cases into generating and storing use cases?

18:46:39 <Luc> q?

18:47:03 <zednik> q+

18:47:07 <JimMcCusker> smiles: test cases need to be implementation-specific.

18:47:40 <IlkayAltintas> +q

18:48:08 <JimMcCusker> zednik: test cases must be machine processable as well as implementation-specific.

18:48:20 <JimMcCusker> zednik: therefore, we need a formal schema.

18:48:48 <JimMcCusker> zednik: how are these test cases different from other kinds of test cases?

18:48:51 <Luc> q?

18:49:05 <pgroth> 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

18:49:36 <JimMcCusker> Luc: The idea of a validator isn't bad. We may come up with additional constraints that aren't syntactic.

18:50:03 <Luc> q?

18:50:09 <Luc> ack zednik

18:50:13 <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.

18:50:50 <JimMcCusker> sandro: 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.

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

18:51:59 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: we can talk about this in 2 month's time and still have test cases in time.

18:52:02 <Luc> q?

18:52:23 <JimMcCusker> pgroth: coming up with test cases is easier with a draft document to work against.

18:52:41 <jcheney> q+

18:53:12 <Luc> ack Ilk

18:53:15 <Luc> ack pgr

18:53:27 <JimMcCusker> zednik: we do need feedback from implementers on what test cases they would like to see.

18:53:58 <Luc> q?

18:54:09 <JimMcCusker> IlkayAltintas: What about backwards compatibility?

18:54:26 <JimMcCusker> sandro: this isn't an issue until we get to candidate recommendation.

18:54:50 <Luc> ack jcheney

18:54:52 <Luc> q?

18:55:11 <zednik> audio is breaking up

18:55:27 <sandro> 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.

18:55:43 <Luc> q?

18:56:07 <Luc> q?

18:56:50 <Lena> (heya ericP!)

18:56:51 <JimMcCusker> sandro: Introductions of Eric Prud'hommeaux

18:57:23 <JimMcCusker> (ericP to the rest of us).

18:57:32 <Zakim> -Lena

19:08:34 <Zakim> -[ISI]

19:15:43 <stain> what's going on.. is it still the break?

19:15:57 <stain> I heard Luc and Satya and started paying attention

19:16:21 <Zakim> -zednik

19:16:32 <zednik> according to my calendar we should have anothe 15 minutes of break

19:18:46 <Zakim> +??P0

19:20:26 <GK> zakim, ??p0 is me

19:20:26 <Zakim> +GK; got it

19:26:29 <IlkayAltintas> t

19:26:57 <Luc> Scribe: TLebo

19:27:22 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 4: Model TF

<luc> Summary: The definitions of concepts "process execution", "generation", "use", and "derivation" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).

19:27:30 <Luc> SUBTOPIC: Process Execution

19:28:34 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←

19:29:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions ←

19:29:59 <tlebo> BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription

BOB - the stand-in name for Description/Characterization/Thing/EntityDescription/StateDescription ←

19:30:01 <Deborah> restaurant - http://www.tommydoyles.com/  - 1 Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02138 617-225-0888   (right sandro?)

Deborah McGuinness: restaurant - http://www.tommydoyles.com/ - 1 Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02138 617-225-0888 (right sandro?) ←

19:30:15 <tlebo> we are NOT defining BOB in this sesssion

we are NOT defining BOB in this sesssion ←

19:30:29 <sandro> right, Deborah

Sandro Hawke: right, Deborah ←

19:30:48 <tlebo> q?

q? ←

19:31:03 <sandro> reservation is under "W3C" for 21 people (18 of us, and 3 additional family members)

Sandro Hawke: reservation is under "W3C" for 21 people (18 of us, and 3 additional family members) ←

19:31:20 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts ←

19:31:22 <JimMcCusker> For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/

James McCusker: For what it's worth, my original idea about Bob was something like datum and datasets in Information Artifact Ontology: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/ ←

19:32:46 <tlebo> rephrased definition of process execution: A process execution is an activity that uses (zero or more) entities in specific states,  described by BOBs, performs a piece of work, and generates (zero or more) new entities in specific states, described by BOBS.

rephrased definition of process execution: A process execution is an activity that uses (zero or more) entities in specific states, described by BOBs, performs a piece of work, and generates (zero or more) new entities in specific states, described by BOBS. ←

19:33:17 <Paulo> q+

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

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

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 Show Interleaved IRC Text

---

This revision (#8) generated 2011-07-13 14:37:14 UTC by 'unknown', comments: None