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