15:05:42 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aacc ←

15:05:46 <Curt> pgroth: past weeks, discussed several options

Paul Groth: past weeks, discussed several options ←

15:05:56 <Curt> ... graham made a proposal discussed last week

... graham made a proposal discussed last week ←

15:06:04 <Curt> ... chairs actioned to counter-propose

... chairs actioned to counter-propose ←

15:06:09 <GK> Sorry I'm late ... re actions, I just took a look at constraints.  Basically looking good.    Comments in email.

Graham Klyne: Sorry I'm late ... re actions, I just took a look at constraints. Basically looking good. Comments in email. ←

15:06:34 <Curt> ... many comments going around.  Consensus proposal looking good, good approach

... many comments going around. Consensus proposal looking good, good approach ←

15:06:58 <Curt> ... core vs. extended has support on mailing list, try to confirm that today

... core vs. extended has support on mailing list, try to confirm that today ←

15:07:32 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html ←

15:07:38 <Curt> luc: worked on text based on mailling list feedback

Luc Moreau: worked on text based on mailling list feedback ←

15:08:00 <Curt> ... revised section 2, now an overview with 3 subsections

... revised section 2, now an overview with 3 subsections ←

15:08:15 <Curt> ... core, extended, organization and components

... core, extended, organization and components ←

15:08:39 <Curt> ... 2.1 now has the diagram

... 2.1 now has the diagram ←

15:09:04 <Curt> ... some work to go on content, ready for external review/feedback soon

... some work to go on content, ready for external review/feedback soon ←

15:09:10 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:09:13 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:09:40 <khalidbelhajjame> My only comment is that it looks good

Khalid Belhajjame: My only comment is that it looks good ←

15:10:07 <Luc> See figure: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-core-structures

Luc Moreau: See figure: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-core-structures ←

15:10:21 <Curt> pgroth: core structures in editors draft, are these what we want?

Paul Groth: core structures in editors draft, are these what we want? ←

15:10:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:10:28 <tlebo> +q to ask about wasInformedBy

Timothy Lebo: +q to ask about wasInformedBy ←

15:10:29 <GK> I think it's about right.

Graham Klyne: I think it's about right. ←

15:10:37 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←

15:10:53 <Curt> tlebo: prov-o also has wasInformedBy as a starting point, propose to add to DM core

Timothy Lebo: prov-o also has wasInformedBy as a starting point, propose to add to DM core ←

15:11:08 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:11:12 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←

15:11:12 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about wasInformedBy

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask about wasInformedBy ←

15:11:17 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc ←

15:11:42 <Curt> luc: that's the only difference between dm and prov-o now...

Luc Moreau: that's the only difference between dm and prov-o now... ←

15:12:11 <jun> +1 to @tlebo

Jun Zhao: +1 to @tlebo ←

15:12:18 <Curt> ... a good reason to add wasInformedBy is that it makes sense in the core

... a good reason to add wasInformedBy is that it makes sense in the core ←

15:12:22 <GK> I'm OK either way... I can see the case.

Graham Klyne: I'm OK either way... I can see the case. ←

15:12:29 <smiles> Structure looks good; also makes sense for someone who's just read the primer, I think

Simon Miles: Structure looks good; also makes sense for someone who's just read the primer, I think ←

15:12:35 <Curt> ... but it isn't really 'primitive' -- it is really a shortcut for other concepts in the core

... but it isn't really 'primitive' -- it is really a shortcut for other concepts in the core ←

15:12:40 <GK> Isn't the same true of derivation?

Graham Klyne: Isn't the same true of derivation? ←

15:12:47 <TomDN> so is wasDerivedFrom, technically...

Tom De Nies: so is wasDerivedFrom, technically... ←

15:13:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:13:21 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+ ←

15:13:22 <Curt> ... I lean toward not including wasInformedBy in the core, but it is somewhat subjective

... I lean toward not including wasInformedBy in the core, but it is somewhat subjective ←

15:13:26 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

15:13:41 <Curt> GK: Could go either way

Graham Klyne: Could go either way ←

15:13:48 <Curt> ... I see Tim's point

... I see Tim's point ←

15:13:49 <tlebo> not sure that "primitiveness" should be the dominating consideration - the point is to give a conceptual basis to begin the story for any potential adopter.

Timothy Lebo: not sure that "primitiveness" should be the dominating consideration - the point is to give a conceptual basis to begin the story for any potential adopter. ←

15:14:22 <tlebo> +1 @GK !

Timothy Lebo: +1 @GK ! ←

15:14:24 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:14:32 <Curt> GK: Is its primitiveness similar to wasDerivedFrom?

Graham Klyne: Is its primitiveness similar to wasDerivedFrom? ←

15:14:36 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:14:57 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) ←

15:15:29 <Luc> used(a2,e) wasGeneratedBy(e,a1)

Luc Moreau: used(a2,e) wasGeneratedBy(e,a1) ←

15:15:39 <Luc> wasInformedBy(a2,a1)

Luc Moreau: wasInformedBy(a2,a1) ←

15:15:42 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:15:50 <tlebo> Perhaps we should point out that this is the "core" of the DM, not the "core" of the constraints document. ("primitiveness" would be more appropriate in dm-constraints)

Timothy Lebo: Perhaps we should point out that this is the "core" of the DM, not the "core" of the constraints document. ("primitiveness" would be more appropriate in dm-constraints) ←

15:15:55 <Curt> luc: ^used + wasGeneratedBy implies wasInformedBy

Luc Moreau: ^used + wasGeneratedBy implies wasInformedBy ←

15:16:05 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDrivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDrivedFrom(e2,e1) ←

15:16:18 <GK> That's unexpected to me

Graham Klyne: That's unexpected to me ←

15:16:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:16:43 <Curt> ... wasInformedBy is a real shortcut, but wasDerivedFrom isn't a shortcut, since you can't make such an implication

... wasInformedBy is a real shortcut, but wasDerivedFrom isn't a shortcut, since you can't make such an implication ←

15:16:45 <GK> (Hunts in spec...)

Graham Klyne: (Hunts in spec...) ←

15:17:13 <Curt> pgroth: is having it in the core of value?

Paul Groth: is having it in the core of value? ←

15:17:14 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+ ←

15:17:24 <jcheney> Definition currently given at: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#component-1--entities-and-activities

James Cheney: Definition currently given at: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#component-1--entities-and-activities ←

15:17:25 <tlebo> +q to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

Timothy Lebo: +q to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs. ←

15:17:34 <Curt> ... people have asked about constructs to show certain relationships

... people have asked about constructs to show certain relationships ←

15:17:46 <Curt> ... having it in the core helps understanding

... having it in the core helps understanding ←

15:17:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:18:34 <pgroth> activities aren't functions

Paul Groth: activities aren't functions ←

15:18:54 <khalidbelhajjame> An activity does not have to use all inputs to produce a given output

Khalid Belhajjame: An activity does not have to use all inputs to produce a given output ←

15:19:06 <Curt> GK: notion of influence is captured by derivation, you need an activity to create the new entity

Graham Klyne: notion of influence is captured by derivation, you need an activity to create the new entity ←

15:19:06 <dgarijo> @Khalid: +1

Daniel Garijo: @Khalid: +1 ←

15:19:29 <Curt> ... if we have got the consumption/generation, we have derivation

... if we have got the consumption/generation, we have derivation ←

15:19:31 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham, you may be talking about traceability

Khalid Belhajjame: Graham, you may be talking about traceability ←

15:19:38 <dgarijo> @Khalid: it may use e1 for a later generation than e2

Daniel Garijo: @Khalid: it may use e1 for a later generation than e2 ←

15:20:31 <Curt> ... if an activity uses an entity, and generates another, then derivation is happening

... if an activity uses an entity, and generates another, then derivation is happening ←

15:20:35 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

15:20:53 <Curt> tlebo: the purpose of 'core' is to orient new adopters

Timothy Lebo: the purpose of 'core' is to orient new adopters ←

15:21:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:21:10 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←

15:21:10 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs. ←

15:21:11 <GK> @tlebo +1 that's more compelling :)

Graham Klyne: @tlebo +1 that's more compelling :) ←

15:21:14 <dgarijo> @GK: Activities have an star time and an end time. That does not imply that all used entities influence all generated entities...

Daniel Garijo: @GK: Activities have an star time and an end time. That does not imply that all used entities influence all generated entities... ←

15:21:14 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:21:16 <Curt> ... other distinctions are secondary

... other distinctions are secondary ←

15:21:33 <Luc>  used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) ←

15:21:41 <Luc> used(a,e1,t1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a,t2)  where t2<t1, so cannot imply  wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1,t1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a,t2) where t2<t1, so cannot imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) ←

15:21:46 <Curt> luc: dgarijo is right, you can't imply derivation in that way

Luc Moreau: dgarijo is right, you can't imply derivation in that way ←

15:22:02 <jun> @gklyne, I don't know whether what @Luc said is in the DM or not. But that notion was the part of the reason for the provenance community to have wasDerivedFrom

Jun Zhao: @GK, I don't know whether what @Luc said is in the DM or not. But that notion was the part of the reason for the provenance community to have wasDerivedFrom ←

15:22:14 <jun> s/gklyne/GK/

15:22:45 <GK> I see the point Luc makes, but I also agree @tlebos point

Graham Klyne: I see the point Luc makes, but I also agree @tlebos point ←

15:23:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:23:09 <Curt> pgroth: Current core contents except for wasInformedBy is ok, is there strong objection to including it?

Paul Groth: Current core contents except for wasInformedBy is ok, is there strong objection to including it? ←

15:23:25 <jun> @GK, yes. I think the discussion was a bit off the original topic:)

Jun Zhao: @GK, yes. I think the discussion was a bit off the original topic:) ←

15:23:28 <dgarijo> if it helps (as Tim suggested), then I think it should go in there..

Daniel Garijo: if it helps (as Tim suggested), then I think it should go in there.. ←

15:23:42 <Curt> luc: we haven't formally defined what is 'core', but it is misleading to consider wasInformedBy on the same level as the others

Luc Moreau: we haven't formally defined what is 'core', but it is misleading to consider wasInformedBy on the same level as the others ←

15:24:03 <Curt> luc: but it is subjective, and we could include if the groups wants to

Luc Moreau: but it is subjective, and we could include if the groups wants to ←

15:24:28 <Curt> luc: I think it should not be there, since it is misleading

Luc Moreau: I think it should not be there, since it is misleading ←

15:24:46 <jun> @Luc, misleading, but might still be helpful?

Jun Zhao: @Luc, misleading, but might still be helpful? ←

15:25:43 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

PROPOSED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy ←

15:25:48 <Luc> @jun, of course,  i am not suggesting to drop it from the model, it is among the extended structures

Luc Moreau: @jun, of course, i am not suggesting to drop it from the model, it is among the extended structures ←

15:26:09 <GK> +0.5  (happy either way, lean to this, but slightly)

Graham Klyne: +0.5 (happy either way, lean to this, but slightly) ←

15:26:09 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:26:10 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:26:16 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:26:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:26:19 <smiles> +1 (ambivalent about wasInformedBy)

Simon Miles: +1 (ambivalent about wasInformedBy) ←

15:26:23 <stephenc> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←

15:26:31 <Curt> +0.5 (ambivalent as well)

+0.5 (ambivalent as well) ←

15:26:34 <zednik> +0.5

Stephan Zednik: +0.5 ←

15:26:35 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

15:26:46 <jun> +0.5 (because time was all excluded, but I am fine with it)

Jun Zhao: +0.5 (because time was all excluded, but I am fine with it) ←

15:26:47 <khalidbelhajjame> +0.5

Khalid Belhajjame: +0.5 ←

15:27:23 <pgroth> accepted: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

RESOLVED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy ←

15:27:28 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:27:34 <Curt> pgroth: ambivalence plus support, so that seems the way to go

Paul Groth: ambivalence plus support, so that seems the way to go ←

15:28:11 <Curt> luc: should consider the choice

Luc Moreau: should consider the choice ←

15:28:12 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith

PROPOSED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith ←

15:28:17 <GK> +0

Graham Klyne: +0 ←

15:28:19 <dgarijo> +1 as well

Daniel Garijo: +1 as well ←

15:28:22 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:28:27 <TomDN> +0

Tom De Nies: +0 ←

15:28:30 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:28:31 <Curt> +0.5

+0.5 ←

15:28:37 <jcheney> +1 happy either way

James Cheney: +1 happy either way ←

15:28:42 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

15:29:01 <tlebo> q+ to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution. ←

15:29:06 <tlebo> -1

Timothy Lebo: -1 ←

15:29:17 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:29:47 <Luc> q|+

Luc Moreau: q|+ ←

15:29:51 <Curt> tlebo: what does this mean for startedAtTime/endedAtTime for its starting point

Timothy Lebo: what does this mean for startedAtTime/endedAtTime for its starting point ←

15:29:51 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←

15:29:51 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution. ←

15:30:05 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o should remove those, so core is consistent

Paul Groth: prov-o should remove those, so core is consistent ←

15:30:08 <GK> I assumed that each document could make it's own evaluation

Graham Klyne: I assumed that each document could make it's own evaluation ←

15:30:18 <jun> +0 fine either way

Jun Zhao: +0 fine either way ←

15:30:26 <Curt> luc: no, prov-dm core doesn't talk about some things like time

Luc Moreau: no, prov-dm core doesn't talk about some things like time ←

15:30:44 <dgarijo> @Tim: when you say remove you mean to put it in expanded terms, right?

Daniel Garijo: @Tim: when you say remove you mean to put it in expanded terms, right? ←

15:30:49 <Curt> luc: we could, but I don't think prov-o would have to remove those from its starting point

Luc Moreau: we could, but I don't think prov-o would have to remove those from its starting point ←

15:31:01 <tlebo> @dgarijo, yes. Moving them to expanded.

Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, yes. Moving them to expanded. ←

15:31:04 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

15:31:07 <tlebo> thanks!

Timothy Lebo: thanks! ←

15:31:08 <dgarijo> @tlebo: ok, thx

Daniel Garijo: @tlebo: ok, thx ←

15:31:12 <Curt> pgroth: ok, you could leave them in the starting points

Paul Groth: ok, you could leave them in the starting points ←

15:31:23 <GK> The question is:  wasInformedBy core or not?

Graham Klyne: The question is: wasInformedBy core or not? ←

15:31:40 <Curt> pgroth: looking at votes, leans to add wasInformedBy to core

Paul Groth: looking at votes, leans to add wasInformedBy to core ←

15:31:49 <dgarijo> @GK: according to the votes it should be included in the core.

Daniel Garijo: @GK: according to the votes it should be included in the core. ←

15:32:17 <pgroth> proposed: is wasInformedBy including in the core in prov-dm

PROPOSED: is wasInformedBy including in the core in prov-dm ←

15:32:32 <Curt> +0

+0 ←

15:32:35 <smiles> 0

Simon Miles: 0 ←

15:32:37 <dgarijo> +0

Daniel Garijo: +0 ←

15:32:38 <khalidbelhajjame> 0

Khalid Belhajjame: 0 ←

15:32:38 <GK> I assume +foires for, - votes against?

Graham Klyne: I assume +foires for, - votes against? ←

15:32:41 <TomDN> +0.5

Tom De Nies: +0.5 ←

15:32:45 <GK> +0.5

Graham Klyne: +0.5 ←

15:32:50 <stephenc> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←

15:33:04 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0 ←

15:33:21 <jun> +0.5

Jun Zhao: +0.5 ←

15:33:44 <jcheney> +1 seems useful to cover it for symmetry with derivation even if it is redundant

James Cheney: +1 seems useful to cover it for symmetry with derivation even if it is redundant ←

15:33:45 <dgarijo> what does 0.5 mean? Is that support, partial support or that you don't care?

Daniel Garijo: what does 0.5 mean? Is that support, partial support or that you don't care? ←

15:33:47 <zednik> +0

Stephan Zednik: +0 ←

15:33:52 <GK> (dropped off audio briefly there)

Graham Klyne: (dropped off audio briefly there) ←

15:34:24 <GK> @dgarijo I use +0.5 to mean I lean towards, but happy either way.

Graham Klyne: @dgarijo I use +0.5 to mean I lean towards, but happy either way. ←

15:34:24 <Curt> pgroth: fairly positive, ok luc?

Paul Groth: fairly positive, ok luc? ←

15:34:26 <Curt> luc: that's fine.

Luc Moreau: that's fine. ←

15:34:28 <TomDN> means that I wouldn't object if it goes the other way

Tom De Nies: means that I wouldn't object if it goes the other way ←

15:34:28 <pgroth> accepted: wasInformedBy included in the core

RESOLVED: wasInformedBy included in the core ←

15:34:33 <dgarijo> @GK: ok, thx!

Daniel Garijo: @GK: ok, thx! ←

15:35:02 <Curt> pgroth: want to confirm other terminology 'core' vs. 'extended', other options?

Paul Groth: want to confirm other terminology 'core' vs. 'extended', other options? ←

15:35:23 <pgroth> proposed: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

PROPOSED: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs ←

15:35:27 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:35:28 <Curt> +1

+1 ←

15:35:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:35:29 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

15:35:34 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:35:35 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:35:40 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:35:45 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:35:46 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:35:47 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:35:54 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:35:57 <Luc> does it mean that prov-o starting points becomes prov-o core?

Luc Moreau: does it mean that prov-o starting points becomes prov-o core? ←

15:35:59 <jun> +1 (for the DM, right? not in every document)

Jun Zhao: +1 (for the DM, right? not in every document) ←

15:36:11 <pgroth> accepted: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

RESOLVED: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs ←

15:36:39 <Curt> pgroth: these decisions are on prov-dm, what is the impact on prov-o?

Paul Groth: these decisions are on prov-dm, what is the impact on prov-o? ←

15:36:53 <Curt> ... prov-o editors? what do you want to do with this?

... prov-o editors? what do you want to do with this? ←

15:37:23 <Curt> tlebo: I'm comfortable changing 'starting point' to 'core', but the time concepts are inconsistent with that

Timothy Lebo: I'm comfortable changing 'starting point' to 'core', but the time concepts are inconsistent with that ←

15:37:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:37:54 <jun> q+ in prov-o we also have terms for qualified patterns

Jun Zhao: q+ in prov-o we also have terms for qualified patterns ←

15:37:57 <Zakim> +??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←

15:38:19 <GK> I propose no immediate impact on PROV-O, unless some one raises an issue.  I have no problem with apparent inconsistency, since it doesn't have any technical impact.

Graham Klyne: I propose no immediate impact on PROV-O, unless some one raises an issue. I have no problem with apparent inconsistency, since it doesn't have any technical impact. ←

15:38:22 <Curt> jun: we have further categorization for other sections, what about those?

Jun Zhao: we have further categorization for other sections, what about those? ←

15:38:27 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:38:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:39:04 <Curt> pgroth: It is reasonable for prov-o to keep starting point and mention these are similar to the prov-dm core

Paul Groth: It is reasonable for prov-o to keep starting point and mention these are similar to the prov-dm core ←

15:39:12 <jun> q-

Jun Zhao: q- ←

15:39:22 <Curt> ... different terminology might help limit confusion, even if there is less parallelism

... different terminology might help limit confusion, even if there is less parallelism ←

15:39:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:39:30 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:39:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:39:32 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:39:34 <Curt> ... prov-dm doesn't have the qualified terms

... prov-dm doesn't have the qualified terms ←

15:39:35 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:39:43 <Zakim> -??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P12 ←

15:40:09 <Curt> luc: in section 2.1 of prov-dm, it just talks about the key classes/types/associations, it doesn't get into the notion of time

Luc Moreau: in section 2.1 of prov-dm, it just talks about the key classes/types/associations, it doesn't get into the notion of time ←

15:40:32 <Curt> ... that comes in much later, 2.1 is just conceptual, doesn't get into syntax

... that comes in much later, 2.1 is just conceptual, doesn't get into syntax ←

15:40:53 <Curt> ... it doesn't preclude time being part of the core, shouldn't be a problem with prov-o having that in its starting points

... it doesn't preclude time being part of the core, shouldn't be a problem with prov-o having that in its starting points ←

15:41:27 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

15:41:28 <GK> Luc: "examples of syntax don't come until section 4"

Luc Moreau: "examples of syntax don't come until section 4" [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←

15:41:37 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:41:39 <Curt> ... with regard to the qualified relations, there are association classes later

... with regard to the qualified relations, there are association classes later ←

15:41:54 <Curt> pgroth: include time in the core points?

Paul Groth: include time in the core points? ←

15:42:04 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←

15:42:25 <Curt> luc: the representation in dm core doesn't really allow discussion of time, but it isn't really a problem to consider time part of that

Luc Moreau: the representation in dm core doesn't really allow discussion of time, but it isn't really a problem to consider time part of that ←

15:42:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:42:50 <GK> WFM

Graham Klyne: WFM ←

15:42:57 <Curt> pgroth: Keep that terminology?  Core for DM and 'starting points' for prov-o?

Paul Groth: Keep that terminology? Core for DM and 'starting points' for prov-o? ←

15:43:03 <khalidbelhajjame> I thought that Luc was suggesting that the core in dm and starting points in provo are the same

Khalid Belhajjame: I thought that Luc was suggesting that the core in dm and starting points in provo are the same ←

15:43:10 <khalidbelhajjame> which I think is the case

Khalid Belhajjame: which I think is the case ←

15:43:26 <GK> @khalid - I think he said they were not incosistent, just that

Graham Klyne: @khalid - I think he said they were not incosistent, just that ←

15:43:35 <Curt> pgroth: they aren't the same, since time isn't in the dm core

Paul Groth: they aren't the same, since time isn't in the dm core ←

15:43:58 <Luc> I don't show any attribute in this class diagram

Luc Moreau: I don't show any attribute in this class diagram ←

15:44:56 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component1

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component1 ←

15:44:59 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:45:16 <Zakim> -??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P5 ←

15:45:33 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component2

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component2 ←

15:46:08 <Curt> luc: to clarify: activities in figure do show time, but those attributes aren't really discussed in the core

Luc Moreau: to clarify: activities in figure do show time, but those attributes aren't really discussed in the core ←

15:46:36 <GK1> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Activity - st and et are mandatory, so I think their appearance (as distinct terms) in PROV-O start is entirely consistent as it can be due to nature of RDF representation.

Graham Klyne: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Activity - st and et are mandatory, so I think their appearance (as distinct terms) in PROV-O start is entirely consistent as it can be due to nature of RDF representation. ←

15:46:46 <Curt> pgroth: either we align, or we don't, tim is right, we do know what is part of dm core, maybe we can address alignment later

Paul Groth: either we align, or we don't, tim is right, we do know what is part of dm core, maybe we can address alignment later ←

15:46:53 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:46:55 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:46:56 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:46:56 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:47:01 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

15:47:04 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:47:13 <pgroth> Topic: Name for Responsibility

<pgroth> Summary: Resolved to use the name Delegation for what is currently Responsibility and to leave actedOnBehalfOf as the relation name.

15:47:17 <Curt> pgroth: luc can proceed based on this for now

15:47:29 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility

15:47:50 <Curt> tlebo: name for responsibility is ambiguous

15:48:32 <Curt> ... tlebo too broad, too general, would like to rename to 'delegation'

15:48:51 <pgroth> q?

15:49:00 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:49:01 <Luc> q+

15:49:09 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:49:20 <Curt> luc: confirm you are now happy with 'delegation'?

15:50:31 <Curt> tlebo: choosing between delegation or OnBehalfOf

15:50:47 <pgroth> q?

15:51:02 <Luc> q+

15:51:02 <pgroth> q?

15:51:06 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:51:06 <Curt> tlebo: I would problem lean toward actedOnBehalfOf, but either that or delegation better than responsibility

15:51:10 <Luc> Responsibility is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

15:51:16 <Curt> s/problem/probably/

15:51:22 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd

15:51:39 <dgarijo> @Tim: so, if we choose delegation, would we change "actedOnBehalfOf" to something like delegated?

15:51:49 <tlebo> @luc, it is strange.

15:51:59 <Curt> luc: behalf sounds strange

15:52:06 <Curt> GK: yes, it does

15:52:22 <Curt> luc: it isn't really used on its own like that

15:52:31 <Curt> pgroth: does it have to be one noun?

15:52:32 <Curt> luc: yes

15:52:33 <tlebo> "Act" ?

15:52:43 <Luc> @tlebo, too close to activity

15:52:50 <pgroth> q?

15:52:52 <tlebo> true

15:53:08 <Luc> q+

15:53:11 <TomDN> "Action" also too close?

15:53:14 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:53:18 <Curt> pgroth: delegation does sound good

15:53:27 <JimMcCusker> "actedFor"?

15:53:46 <tlebo> POI we already have "qualified" v. "unqualifed" naming mismatches, so it's not a show stopper.

15:53:48 <Curt> luc: delegation has a benefit, and clarifies the presentation in both documents

15:53:55 <tlebo> (wasinformedBy and Communication)

15:54:33 <pgroth> proposed: Use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

15:54:57 <smiles> +1 unless it means changing actedOnBehalfOf to wasDelegatedTo

15:54:59 <tlebo> +1 (it "stands along" better than "Behalf")

15:55:04 <tlebo> s/along/alone/

15:55:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

15:55:06 <GK> +1

15:55:07 <SamCoppens> +1

15:55:09 <dgarijo> +1

15:55:13 <TomDN> +1

15:55:13 <Curt> +1

15:55:15 <jcheney> +.999

15:55:18 <jun> +1 (it seems clearer)

15:55:19 <jcheney> +1

15:55:22 <stainPhone> +1

15:55:40 <Curt> pgroth: simon -- I don't like 'wasDelegatedTo' either

15:55:48 <Luc> q+

15:55:53 <Curt> smiles: actedOnBehalfOf is better

15:55:56 <zednik> +1 (Delegation better than Responsibility)

15:56:07 <Curt> luc: yes, wouldn't want to change it to 'wasDelegatedTo'

15:56:17 <Luc> Delegation is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

15:56:37 <Curt> luc: can I simply replace 'responsibility' with 'delegation'?

15:56:41 <TomDN> +q

15:56:46 <TomDN> zakim, unmute me

15:56:46 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted

15:56:47 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:56:52 <pgroth> ack TomDm

15:57:01 <pgroth> ack TomDN

15:57:27 <Curt> TomDN: keyword subordinate doesn't really work -- you can delegate to a peer

15:57:29 <pgroth> q?

15:57:29 <stainPhone> And what is "accountable" now.

15:57:46 <smiles> Yes, I find it fine just replacing Responsibility with Delegation

15:57:49 <GK> "assignment of responsibility" -> "delegation"

15:58:11 <pgroth> q?

15:58:15 <Curt> pgroth: simple search replace should be ok

15:58:31 <GK> I think an editorial pass may be needed.

15:58:32 <zednik> from wikipedia, slightly longer definition

15:58:34 <zednik> Delegation (or deputation) is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person (normally from a manager to a subordinate) to carry out specific activities. However the person who delegated the work remains accountable for the outcome of the delegated work.

15:58:39 <TomDN> I don't disagree, but it is what we define it is

15:58:54 <tlebo> one can look at "senior" with a localized context - even a peer is "senior" if they give a responsibility to a peer (or if a peer "just does it" without the "senior"  asking).

15:58:54 <Curt> http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2004/11/on_authority_and_responsibilit.html

15:58:54 <TomDN> so basically it is up to us, no?

15:59:01 <Luc> @zednik: I like your text

15:59:06 <stainPhone> Scribe please? I could not hear what pgroth said.

15:59:19 <pgroth> accepted: use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

15:59:36 <pgroth> Topic: Reviewers

<pgroth> Summary: The following working group members agreed to act as reviewers for the forthcoming releases of the various documents. prov-dm: Daniel, Tom, Khalid. prov-o: Sam, Paul, Luc. prov-constraints: Simon, Tom. prov-n: Sam James, Khalid

15:59:53 <stainPhone> Sorry, lag on irc..

15:59:58 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aadd

16:00:02 <Curt> pgroth: who is willing to review when they are ready to go?

16:00:02 <pgroth> prov-dm

16:00:06 <tlebo> @luc, @zednick, I think we should also cover the case where an agent "just does it without asking" for another agent. (altruism)

16:00:06 <dgarijo> I do

16:00:10 <TomDN> I'll review it as well

16:00:11 <khalidbelhajjame> I do

16:00:12 <Curt> +1

16:00:35 <pgroth> reviewers for prov-o

16:00:42 <dgarijo> so, just to be sure, the document to review is : http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html ??

16:00:44 <SamCoppens> +1

16:00:44 <pgroth> i will

16:01:00 <Luc> @tlebo, ok, i will circulate definition suggestions

16:01:02 <dgarijo> @pgroth: ok, thanks

16:01:12 <SamCoppens> i will

16:01:13 <Curt> pgroth: Just picking reviewers to review in 1-2 weeks when documents are ready

16:01:15 <Luc> +1

16:01:31 <pgroth> prov-constraints

16:01:34 <smiles> +1

16:01:43 <TomDN> I'll read this one too

16:01:52 <pgroth> prov-n

16:02:08 <SamCoppens> +1

16:02:14 <jcheney> +1

16:02:17 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

16:02:45 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

16:02:45 <dgarijo> bye!

16:02:47 <Zakim> -tlebo

16:02:47 <Zakim> -Sandro

16:02:48 <Zakim> -TomDN

16:02:48 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aacc

16:02:48 <Luc> bye

16:02:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo

16:02:56 <Luc> @gk

16:02:58 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

16:02:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

16:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth

16:03:01 <Zakim> -??P3

16:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

16:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:03:11 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

16:03:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

16:03:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro,

16:03:14 <Zakim> ... +44.789.470.aadd

16:03:16 <Zakim> -Luc

16:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:03:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:03:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

16:03:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

16:03:39 <Zakim> -jun

16:04:27 <Zakim> -GK1

16:04:28 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

16:04:28 <Zakim> Attendees were jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro, +44.789.470.aadd