Chatlog 2011-06-09

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:51:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:55 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:51:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:51:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:52:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:00 <trackbot> Date: 09 June 2011
14:52:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:52:25 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:25 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:48 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:52:50 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:53:05 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth
14:53:26 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:54:36 <Zakim> +??P3
14:54:52 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me
14:54:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:55:12 <Zakim> -Luc
14:55:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:55:27 <pgroth> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
14:55:27 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
14:55:37 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:55:54 <pgroth> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:55:54 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:56:11 <Zakim> +??P3
14:56:13 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
14:56:49 <estephan> estephan has joined #prov
14:56:52 <Zakim> +??P5
14:57:01 <pgroth> would someone be willing to scribe?
14:57:32 <Zakim> -??P5
14:57:46 <Zakim> +??P5
14:57:52 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me
14:57:52 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
14:58:14 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
14:58:32 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:58:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:00 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
14:59:05 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:05 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
14:59:16 <Zakim> +??P20
14:59:25 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, ??P3, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20
14:59:43 <frew> frew has joined #prov
14:59:50 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aabb
14:59:51 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:02 <Zakim> +??P31
15:00:05 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:00:20 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
15:00:21 <Zakim> +??P36
15:00:24 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P31 is me
15:00:24 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:00:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P38
15:01:00 <GK_> zakim, ??p38 is me
15:01:00 <Zakim> +GK_; got it
15:01:19 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aacc
15:01:38 <olaf> zakim, aacc is me
15:01:38 <Zakim> +olaf; got it
15:01:45 <simoninireland> simoninireland has joined #prov
15:01:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:01:49 <Zakim> +??P21
15:01:56 <smiles> zakim, ??P21 is me
15:01:56 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:02:01 <GK_> (I need to leave promptly at the hour)
15:02:05 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:08 <Zakim> + +1.832.386.aadd
15:02:17 <Zakim> +??P2
15:02:29 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:02:30 <Zakim> +??P6
15:02:33 <Zakim> -??P2
15:02:59 <Zakim> +??P1
15:03:02 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:03:15 <Zakim> +??P7
15:03:16 <jorn> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, ??P36, GK_, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd, ??P6, ??P1, ??P7
15:03:23 <jcheney> zakim, ??P7 is me
15:03:23 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:03:31 <tlebo> :-)
15:03:34 <tlebo> scribe: tlebo
15:03:40 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaee
15:03:40 <jcheney> AFK for a minute
15:03:51 <pgroth>
<luc>Topic: Admin
<luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; actions-10 and 11 are carried over, all other actions were completed. Invited expert issues are now all resolved by the W3C; new members of the group are invited to introduce themselves on the mailing list. All are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings.
15:03:59 <tlebo> subtopic: Minutes from last week
15:04:02 <dgarijo> +1
15:04:03 <smiles> +1
15:04:06 <estephan> +1
15:04:06 <tlebo> proposed: accept minutes
15:04:09 <frew> +1
15:04:11 <olaf> +1
15:04:11 <GK_> +1
15:04:12 <simoninireland> +1
15:04:14 <zednik> +1
15:04:22 <jorn> +1
15:04:24 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:04:24 <tlebo> +1
15:04:44 <Zakim> + +329331aaff
15:04:45 <tlebo> accepted: minutes
15:04:53 <tlebo> subtopic: Coordinators of task forces
15:04:56 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aagg
15:05:14 <tlebo> pgroth: in addition to coordinators announced last week, Helene Deus and Stephan Zednik will coordinate the Implementation and Test Cases TF till F2F1
#15:05:17 <tlebo> connection task force
15:05:17 <Zakim> +??P11
15:05:34 <tlebo>
15:05:49 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
15:06:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:06:02 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaff is me
15:06:02 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
#15:06:31 <tlebo> topic: Definition of Resource
<luc>subtopic: Record vote that took place during the week
<luc>pgroth: we take note of a vote made during the week
15:06:04 <pgroth> In a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing
15:06:20 <pgroth>
15:06:26 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:06:30 <paolo_> paolo_ has joined #prov
15:06:39 <tlebo> pgroth: is there objections to the proposal?
#15:06:39 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - Objections of definition? ; please complete additional details at .
15:06:49 <tlebo> oops
15:06:54 <JamesMyers> JamesMyers has joined #prov
15:07:05 <tlebo> accepted: to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing
15:07:15 <tlebo> subtopic: open actions
15:07:12 <pgroth>
15:07:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:07:43 <tlebo> there were actions for Resource
15:07:51 <dgarijo> @tlebo: definition for resource or agreement to use the IVPTs?
15:07:54 <tlebo> there were actions for the Task Forces - on way to being done.
15:07:55 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh
15:08:09 <tlebo> subtopic: Invited experts have been invited.
15:08:22 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aaii
15:08:36 <Zakim> +??P19
15:08:46 <Yogesh> zakim, + +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh
15:08:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '+ +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh', Yogesh
15:08:48 <dgarijo> i get a lot of noise :(
15:08:49 <tlebo> invited expert #1. - (broken voice connection)
15:08:59 <Luc> generally, people who have joined recently may want to send an introduction to the mailing list
15:09:02 <paolo_> zakim, ??P19 is me
15:09:02 <Zakim> +paolo_; got it
15:09:12 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:09:14 <jorn> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:09:25 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (9%), ??P36 (13%)
15:09:29 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540.449 is Yogesh
15:09:29 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:09:36 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P36
15:09:36 <Zakim> ??P36 should now be muted
15:10:02 <Zakim> +??P24
15:10:07 <tlebo> any other intros on phone? please introduce yourselves on the mailing list.
15:10:19 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P24 is really me
15:10:19 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:10:22 <tlebo> subtopic: Scribes
15:10:26 <tlebo> please sign up.
15:10:29 <pgroth>
15:11:02 <tlebo> topic: Plans from PAQ Task Force until Face-to-Face meeting
<luc>Summary: Simon Miles and Yogesh presented the plans and timetable for the PAQ TF. A number of participants volunteered to contribute to this document.
15:11:09 <Zakim> -jorn
15:11:18 <pgroth>
15:11:24 <Zakim> +??P5
15:11:30 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me
15:11:30 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:11:56 <dgarijo>
15:12:07 <tlebo> smiles: they proposed on mailing list, no objections yet. 2 questions - 1) identity and 2) location; how to obtain and embedding in HTML.
15:12:30 <tlebo> smiles: inspired by incubator proposal in report.
15:12:39 <Zakim> -??P6
15:12:56 <tlebo> smiles: want to start populating templates. feedback on templates welcome, too.
15:13:43 <tlebo> smiles: want to discover issues in next week so we have them to discuss at F2F.
15:13:48 <Zakim> +??P6
15:13:49 <pgroth> q?
#15:14:19 <tlebo> unknown: broken phone connection.
15:14:32 <paolo_> q+
15:14:54 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:14:57 <smiles>
15:15:04 <satya>
15:15:10 <tlebo> paolo_: what is powder? Can we have reference?
15:15:36 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov
15:15:44 <tlebo> paolo_: make sure powder link is obvious in the writeup.
15:16:06 <tlebo> pgroth: timetable?
15:16:45 <tlebo> smiles: today - finish scope asap. by 23rd June finish questions. by 30tg draft for F2F.
#15:16:59 <tlebo> : simon to send timeline in mailing list.
#15:16:59 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - simon
#15:16:59 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
15:17:31 <olaf> I will
15:17:43 <paolo_> q?
15:17:43 <GK_> I intend to continue to help with proposals
15:17:46 <paolo_> ack
15:17:49 <tlebo> proposed: people self-select to provide proposals.
15:17:53 <Yogesh> q+
15:17:56 <satya> volunteer
15:17:56 <Luc> I will point to the web protocol defined by sparql group as a way to access provenance
15:18:00 <paolo_> q?
15:18:03 <paolo_> q-
15:18:04 <pgroth> ack paolo_
15:18:07 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
15:18:29 <tlebo> []: please separate proposals into different sections based on who proposed them.
15:18:33 <Yogesh> q-
15:18:48 <SamCoppens> volunteer
15:19:15 <olaf> q+
15:19:23 <pgroth> ack olaf
15:19:49 <Luc> graham, why do you need a reference to the powder profile here? isn't it that <link/> is part of html and not POWDER?  
15:20:11 <tlebo> olaf: proposals first phase, THEN issues raised against proposal. what do issues mean? issues of proposals themselves or that are found when considering them.
15:20:21 <GK_> q+ 
15:20:23 <tlebo> smiles: the former is intended.
15:20:24 <olaf> q-
15:20:52 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:20:53 <GK_> q-
15:21:03 <tlebo> smiles: we should distinguish between out of scope for F2F but sill within scope of prov-wg.
15:22:32 <tlebo> GK_: re POWDER. want to make distinction from access vs. determinign the URIs for access. not sure how to make that clear in current writeup sections.
15:22:36 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:22:52 <edsu> zakim, [LC] is edsu 
15:22:52 <Zakim> +edsu; got it
15:23:27 <tlebo> provenance of document vs. its identity
15:23:54 <tlebo> topic: Plans for Connection Task Force until Face-to-face meeting
<luc>Summary: Eric presented the plans drafted with Kai for the Connection TF. A timetable still needs to be produced. Group members have volunteered to contribute to the task force.
15:24:05 <pgroth>
15:25:04 <Luc> yogesh and simon, could you add the timeline to the wiki page?
15:25:35 <tlebo> ericstephan: for proposal, not timeline yet. Have initial proposed scope. Basing from incubator group; existing vocabularies. Domain-specific conventions need to be considered. 3) complementary concepts relating to provenance.
15:25:53 <tlebo> ericstephan: e.g. visual analytics group interested in provenance.
15:26:25 <tlebo> ericstephan: considering scope; what to exclude/include.
15:26:42 <GK_> q+ to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:26:46 <Zakim> -jorn
15:26:49 <tlebo> ericstephan: Kai has example template to use when gathering connections.
#15:27:02 <tlebo> s/CHI/??/
15:27:14 <dgarijo> i think he refers to Kai
15:27:15 <satya> @Eric - please clarify "complementary concepts relating to provenance"
15:27:31 <Zakim> +??P5
#15:27:31 <Luc> s/CHI/Kai/
15:27:40 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me
15:27:40 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:28:13 <satya> thanks!
15:28:19 <tlebo> ericstephan: w.r.t. data quality, uncertainty quantification. a lot of work in "knowledge provenance layer". -- what means by "complementary concepts"
15:28:23 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:28:23 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:28:34 <tlebo> GK_: examples for domain-specific conventions.
15:29:09 <Yogesh> @Luc, F2F1 Access and Query Proposal plan has been posted to wiki
15:29:29 <tlebo> ericstephan: currently trying to integrate disparate models with earth simulation, agriculture, power grid models. They want to capture and identify uncertainties from those results.
15:29:42 <Luc> @Yogesh, thanks!
15:29:51 <Luc> q+
15:29:51 <tlebo> ericstephan: this will need provenance to address the uncertainties.
15:30:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:30:20 <pgroth> luc?
15:30:32 <tlebo> luc: broken phone.
15:30:32 <Luc> it looks like you can't hear me, i'll type my comments
15:31:03 <tlebo> pgroth: please add timeline soon for connection.
15:31:07 <Luc> the scenario that Eric described looks more like an application, doesn't this belong to the last task force?
15:31:16 <ericstephan> okay
15:31:29 <tlebo> pgroth: people should help with connection task force.
15:31:37 <simoninireland> I'd be interested
15:31:44 <Luc> For this task force, will we investigate opportunities for connecting with DC, Identity, Life Science, ....
15:31:45 <simoninireland> Sorry, keyboard malfunction :-)
15:31:47 <ericstephan> Several people volunteered yesterday in email
15:31:50 <Lena> i am interested
15:32:02 <tlebo> pgroth: this is about connecting to existing provenance standards and domains and their use cases
15:32:04 <ericstephan> I believe Carl Reed?
15:32:13 <Christine> Apologies. It is difficult for me to hear. But very happy to help progress this work.
15:32:15 <edsu> i would be willing to try to help outreach w/ digital preservation community
15:32:20 <ericstephan> Thank you
15:32:23 <GK_> @luc @ericstephan I'm *guessing* that there's a reference here to provenence that's implicit in existing applications, and if there are conventions we can connect to.  But that's just my guess.
15:32:26 <frew> very interested in connections to climate/earth science but will be offline for next ~3 weeks so can't help w/ F2F1
15:32:35 <tlebo> topic: Plans for Implementation and Test case Task Force until F2F1
<luc>Summary: Helena and Stephan presented their plan for the task force.  The focus of the discussion was on the scope of this TF. Actual plans until F2F1 still need to be formulated. It was agreed that the document had just been released and more time was needed to reflect on it. Plans for F2F1 will be written during the week.
15:32:44 <Luc> @ericstephan, will you also write the timetable on the wiki?
15:32:47 <zednik> wiki page:
15:33:16 <tlebo> lena: identified scope on wiki. listing series of deliverables.
15:33:30 <ericstephan> @Luc yes I will meet with Kai on the timeline and get this out asap
15:33:44 <tlebo> lena: engaging with stakeholders and connecting with other task forces. contacting those with provenance problems, so they can give overview and how it would be used.
15:33:59 <Luc> q+
15:34:28 <tlebo> GK_: wiki page indicates stakeholder-oriented. lower level test cases to help clarify details? e.g. RDF working group had small test cases.
15:34:44 <satya> @Lena/Stephan: would like to point to the use cases created by the Provenance XG, for example: 
15:34:47 <dgarijo> +q
15:34:53 <tlebo> lena: develop use cases from interviewing stakeholders.
15:36:02 <tlebo> luc: to Helena, going to talk to stakeholders outside of working group or inside?
15:36:32 <tlebo> lena:  Ideally outside. e.g. Stephan's Australia and Helena's. Invite them to present to us.
15:36:58 <tlebo> luc: remember those in working group. Would help to focus with them.
15:37:22 <tlebo> luc: members of group interested in implementing standards.
15:37:43 <jun> q+
15:37:46 <tlebo> lena: by F2F, clarifying use cases and detailing them.
15:37:47 <smiles> q+
15:37:55 <Luc> q-
15:37:59 <Zakim> -jorn
15:38:03 <dgarijo>
15:38:13 <Zakim> +??P2
15:38:16 <tlebo> dgarijo: in incubator group, 50 use cases. some of those can be reused.
15:38:22 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me
15:38:22 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:38:29 <pgroth> q?
15:38:31 <tlebo> lena: started with those
15:38:35 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
15:38:46 <tlebo> dgarijo: please add link to those from the wiki page
15:38:53 <pgroth> ack jun
15:39:08 <tlebo> action: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases
15:39:08 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - use
15:39:57 <satya> +1 for Jun's point
15:40:07 <dgarijo> yep, I agree too.
15:40:26 <tlebo> jun: worried about implementation vs. use cases - out of scope? 2) what to do with requirements? expand model based on use cases?
15:41:02 <Luc> q+
15:41:03 <tlebo> lena: idea is to help identify the requirements for the use cases and make sure it has a target audience.
15:41:16 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:41:21 <GK_> q+ to say but we are not (as a WG) creating a s/w implementation
15:41:23 <tlebo> jun: suggest to restate the wiki page to reflect this.
15:41:56 <tlebo> smiles: objectives for F2F preparations?
15:42:03 <dgarijo> @GK_ but we should at least provide some examples/guidelines if we want people to use the PIL
15:42:24 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders both at F2F and outside.
15:42:36 <GK_> @dgariji yes, no prob there, but wary of scope
15:42:45 <GK_> s/ware/wary/
15:42:54 <tlebo> zednik: still establishing scope for task force.
15:42:59 <pgroth> q?
15:43:03 <VinhNguyen> VinhNguyen has joined #prov
15:43:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:43:42 <tlebo> luc: concerned for amount of work. only 4 weeks to F2F. 
15:43:48 <Zakim> + +1.937.708.aajj
15:43:57 <tlebo> zednik: we are not doing work, but establishing scope of what TF will be doing.
15:44:54 <tlebo> lena: scope of TF
15:45:03 <tlebo> luc: we need 2 independent implementations that interoperate.
15:45:17 <tlebo> luc: we need to define what it means to interoperate.
15:45:53 <tlebo> luc: we need to find someone with a provenance problem willing to implement the standards.
15:46:37 <tlebo> lena: TF will review the charter.
15:46:37 <SamCoppens> I am volunteer for reference impl
15:46:40 <GK_> q?
15:47:51 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders is primary objective for F2F.
15:48:18 <tlebo> luc: what kind of information to do want to obtain from stakeholders.
15:48:37 <Zakim> -??P1
15:48:58 <tlebo> pgroth: table to mailing list.
15:49:10 <Luc> +1
15:49:35 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:49:48 <dgarijo> I think it would be nice to try to model at least the news example with the current concepts.
15:50:38 <tlebo> GK_: regarding wg's role in implementations and applications. That's not what's happening.
15:51:04 <tlebo> zednik: TF to coordinate implementation, but who would be DOING it?
15:51:09 <paolo_> @GK I think this is clear enough from the charter?
15:51:19 <tlebo> pgroth: we find groups that are willing to adopt our standard - we don't do it ourselves.
15:51:40 <tlebo> zednik: we should provide documentation that allows another group to implement the recommendation.
15:51:42 <dgarijo> +1 to the portotypes.
15:51:51 <GK_> @paolo, indeed. makes no reference to ref implementation.
15:52:01 <tlebo> pgroth: more than one organization develops our recommendations.
15:52:10 <estephan> it would seem like there is a relationship between the implementation and connection task force that we should explore at the f2f
15:52:11 <paolo_> q+
15:52:19 <GK_> q-
15:52:22 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:52:25 <pgroth> ack paolo_
15:52:37 <satya> @GK - for the proposal of the WG to be a W3C recommendation, we need couple of example/prototype implementations 
15:53:03 <tlebo> paolo_: for modeling language vs. tooling. Implementation is not in scope, but tools need to support the new model.
15:53:17 <GK_> @satya - sure we do, but the *implementation* itself isn't from the WG.  Convincing toolmakers is.
15:53:31 <paolo_> q-
15:53:36 <Zakim> -jorn
15:53:43 <GK_> The point is to prove that NON-WG-MEMBERS can implement it.
15:53:49 <tlebo> pgroth: scope of wg is not to create implementation, but to convince others to adopt it.
15:53:57 <Zakim> +??P1
15:54:01 <jorn> zakim, ??p1 is me
15:54:01 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:54:10 <satya> @GK - agree, I think Paolo put it precisely - example tools
<luc> TOPIC: Model Task Force
<luc>Summary: Three proposals were put forward in the agenda. The first one was approved. We began discussions on the second, but didn't have time to reach consensus.  The third one was left for next week.
15:54:17 <pgroth> proposed: 1. there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition; 2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG; 3. terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate
15:54:18 <pgroth> there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition
15:54:18 <pgroth> process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG
15:54:18 <pgroth> terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate
15:54:29 <tlebo> pgroth: Concepts discussions - process execution and process specification.
15:54:46 <khalidbelhajjame> How easy to convince people/organization that are non members of the WG to implement a model that they did not specify?
15:55:03 <tlebo> pgroth: process specification equates to "recipe" in prov-xg. we are not creating a specification language.
15:55:05 <satya> q+
15:55:18 <tlebo> pgroth: creating process specification language is out of scope.
15:55:21 <dgarijo> @khalid: true
15:55:44 <satya> q-
15:55:57 <satya> +1 
15:55:57 <smiles> +1
15:55:58 <JamesMyers> +1
15:55:58 <jcheney> +1
15:55:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:55:59 <dgarijo> +1
15:55:59 <Yogesh> +1
15:56:00 <GK_> +1 agree with distinction
15:56:00 <jun> +1
15:56:00 <Edoardo> +1
15:56:00 <olaf> +1
15:56:01 <estephan> +1
15:56:01 <frew> +1
15:56:01 <dcorsar> +1
15:56:03 <paolo_> +1
15:56:06 <zednik> +1
15:56:07 <tlebo> satya: we need to distinguish, but we are not defining what is actually used.
15:56:08 <tlebo> +1
15:56:09 <GK_> -1 link to specific language
15:56:11 <tlebo> (group can link to them, but are not defining them)
15:56:12 <jcheney> and we could point to other such languages (XProc, BPEL, ...)
15:56:15 <tfrancart> +1
15:56:24 <SamCoppens> +1
15:56:29 <tlebo> action: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page
15:56:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - add
15:56:31 <satya> @James - agree
15:56:41 <VinhNguyen> +1
15:57:02 <tlebo> GK_: recognizing that there may be languages and they can be implemented
15:57:17 <JamesMyers> the only model question I have is whether we need process which has executions and a recipe or just the link between process execution and process recipe (w/o an independent thing called process)
15:57:18 <jcheney> "including, but not limited to language 1, language 2, language 3, ..."
15:57:21 <Lena> +1
15:57:37 <tlebo> accepted: 1. there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition; 2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG; 3. terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate
15:57:45 <tlebo> pgroth: Proposal 2: process execution
15:57:48 <pgroth> PROPOSED: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
15:57:55 <tlebo> pgroth: process execution has time interval.
15:57:58 <satya> +1
15:57:59 <GK_> q+ to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:58:04 <dgarijo> +1
15:58:17 <satya> q+
15:58:18 <Christine> Apologies all. I will need to leave the call.
15:58:21 <Luc> q+
15:58:25 <Zakim> -??P6
15:58:25 <tlebo> GK_: does anything break if we don't require start of execution to be in past?
15:59:05 <tlebo> satya: it is important that process has started in past. provenance metadata is w.r.t history. it is a defining criteria for provenance.
15:59:08 <smiles> q+
15:59:13 <satya> q-
15:59:14 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:59:15 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:59:16 <GK_> q-
15:59:20 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:59:28 <paolo_> @GK provenance is based on observations... so yes, the process exec should have started before we can observe what it does 
15:59:39 <tlebo> luc: +1 satya, we are not defining what will happen in future or predicting. not about specifying things in future. describing what has happened in the past.
15:59:41 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:59:45 <JamesMyers> anticipated provenance is workflow :-)
16:00:08 <GK_> (I'm trying to think of examples ... best I can do is fiction)
16:00:20 <GK_> What Simon said
16:00:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:00:44 <pgroth> proposed: process execution has a duration and A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past.
16:00:45 <paolo_> q+
16:00:45 <JamesMyers> has a duration or can have a duration?
16:00:57 <paolo_> duration?
16:01:00 <Luc> q+
16:01:05 <tlebo> proposed: process execution has a duration and is in the past.
16:01:17 <Zakim> -GK_
16:01:42 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
16:01:47 <pgroth> ack paolo_
16:01:47 <JamesMyers> in OPM, time was 'optional'...
16:01:58 <zednik> q+
16:02:00 <satya> @khalid - the definition of process incorporates time dimension
16:02:08 <smiles> 'non-instantaneous'?
16:02:08 <tlebo> paolo_: starting time is enough to talk about provenance. no more is needed. duration may be ongoing. not necessary to get into it.
16:02:09 <paolo_> q-
16:02:30 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:03:39 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:03:45 <paolo_> q+
16:03:51 <tlebo> luc: disagrees with paolo.  We are creating a modeling language to help us describe what has happening in the past. We _could_ describe everything as being instantaneous. Processes do not necessarily have to a duration; they could be instantaneous. Instead, what we say is there is a start time and end time. Also, we should not merge proposals.
16:04:00 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:04:13 <tlebo> zednik: agrees, but is time a required property or optional?
16:04:32 <tlebo> pgroth: it has a duration, not that you have to specify it. (open world?)
16:04:41 <satya> @Stephan - without time dimension, process cannot be distinguished from notion of resource
16:04:43 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
16:05:04 <Luc> how long did it last?
16:05:18 <Zakim> -smiles
16:05:23 <pgroth> ack paolo_
16:05:28 <zednik> @Satya - not sure what you mean, perhaps follow-up in email
16:05:51 <JamesMyers> OPM considered time stamps as a way to verify/challenge the processing claims (evidence that you should trust the provenance)
16:06:06 <pgroth> proposed: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
16:06:10 <tlebo> paolo_: useful to have start time so can reason about events. end time is less important.
16:06:13 <dgarijo> +1
16:06:14 <satya> +1
16:06:14 <JamesMyers> +1
16:06:16 <frew> +1
16:06:17 <paolo_> q-
16:06:17 <StephenCresswell> +1
16:06:17 <zednik> +1
16:06:18 <paolo_> +1
16:06:20 <jcheney> +1
16:06:21 <olaf> +1 to duration
16:06:21 <SamCoppens> +1
16:06:24 <dcorsar> +1
16:06:25 <estephan> +1
16:06:25 <Edoardo> +1
16:06:29 <jun> 0
16:06:33 <Yogesh> +1
16:06:34 <khalidbelhajjame> 0
16:06:37 <jorn> +1 even though duration can be incredibly short
16:06:37 <Lena> -1 to making duration a requirement
16:06:39 <tlebo> 0
16:06:58 <paolo_> it's not that end time is less important, rather that process executions may not have a known end time
16:06:59 <zednik> -1 to make duration a requirement
16:07:27 <estephan> agreed with Stephan
16:07:28 <tlebo> (open world can help us here, no?)
16:07:41 <zednik> @tlebo - agreed
16:07:43 <JamesMyers> process executions are not constrained to be instantaneous...
16:07:45 <paolo_> "process executions have a temporal characterisation" sounds trivially true...
16:07:59 <satya> q+
16:08:20 <tlebo> pgroth: we need to finish this up on mailing list.
16:08:49 <tlebo> satya: philosophy. execution occurs over time - essential. can be instantaneous or over time (depending on granularity).
16:08:57 <tlebo> satya: does not need to be explicitly noted, but is essential aspect.
16:08:58 <satya> q-
16:09:24 <Zakim> -jorn
16:09:24 <tlebo> pgroth: group to finish up process execution.
#16:09:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Group to finish up process execution. ; please complete additional details at .
16:09:31 <estephan> bye
16:09:31 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aagg
16:09:32 <Zakim> -paolo_
16:09:33 <Zakim> -edsu
16:09:34 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:09:34 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:09:34 <tlebo> SCRIBE HELP
16:09:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:09:36 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:09:36 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aabb
16:09:37 <paolo_> paolo_ has left #prov
16:09:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:09:40 <Zakim> -olaf
16:09:42 <Zakim> - +1.937.708.aajj
16:09:43 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has left #prov
16:09:44 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:09:46 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:09:48 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh
16:09:50 <Zakim> -??P20
16:09:52 <Zakim> +??P0
16:09:52 <tlebo> rrsagent, set log public
16:09:54 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaee
16:09:56 <Zakim> - +1.832.386.aadd
16:09:58 <Zakim> -??P11
16:09:58 <tlebo> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate tlebo
16:10:00 <Zakim> -??P36
16:10:02 <Zakim> -Luc
16:10:04 <Zakim> -??P0
16:10:12 <pgroth> Regrets: Yolanda Gil, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Kai Eckert, Carl Reed
16:10:53 <tlebo> trackbot, end telcon
16:10:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:10:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, pgroth, jorn, [IPcaller], +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, GK_, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd,
16:10:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:10:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:10:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in :
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: simon to send timeline in mailing list. [1]
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases [2]
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page [3]
#16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
16:10:57 <Zakim> ... jcheney, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.216.368.aagg, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aahh, +1.540.449.aaii, paolo_, Yogesh, khalidbelhajjame, edsu, +1.937.708.aajj
16:11:09 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:11:10 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:11:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended