Chatlog 2011-06-16

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.

<luc>GUEST: Ralph (ralphtq) Hodgson
14:50:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:17 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:50:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:50:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:23 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:50:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:23 <trackbot> Date: 16 June 2011
14:50:27 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:50:28 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:50 <Luc> Agenda:
14:51:02 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:51:24 <Luc> Regrets: Paolo Missier, Kai Eckert, Graham Klyne, Helena Deus
14:51:30 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:51:30 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:51:36 <Luc> scribe: dgarijo
14:51:37 <Zakim> +??P34
14:51:48 <pgroth> Zakim, +??P34 is me
14:51:48 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+??P34'
14:51:58 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P34 is me
14:51:58 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:52:40 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:52:50 <Luc> zakim, aaaa is me
14:52:50 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:53:00 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:53:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc
14:53:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, edsu, sandro, trackbot, stain
14:54:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:54:35 <Luc> Topic: Admin
<luc>Summary: The last minutes were accepted; actions-10 is now closed and action-11 is carried over.  The vote that occurred during the week was noted. All are again encouraged to sign up to be scribes for future meetings.
14:54:56 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:54:56 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:55:50 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:56:38 <Zakim> +??P38
14:56:48 <stain> Zakim, ???P38 is me
14:56:48 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '???P38'
14:56:49 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
14:56:54 <stain> Zakim, ?P38 is me
14:56:54 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '?P38'
14:57:06 <stain> Zakim: +??P38 is me
14:57:06 <Zakim> +??P39
14:57:14 <smiles> zakim, ??P39 is me
14:57:14 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
14:57:28 <Zakim> +??P40
#14:57:28 <Luc> Regrets+ Graham Klyne
14:57:30 <Zakim> +??P41
14:57:36 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
14:58:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:58:23 <Zakim> -??P41
14:58:26 <dgarijo>
14:58:34 <Zakim> +??P41
14:58:36 <dgarijo> Agenda:
14:58:44 <jorn> Zakim: ??p41 is me
14:58:45 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
14:58:51 <jorn> Zakim, ??p41 is me
14:58:52 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
14:59:03 <tlebo> zakim, aabb is me
14:59:04 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
14:59:25 <jorn> zakim, who is noisy?
14:59:31 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:59:36 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (14%)
14:59:53 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:00 <stain> (SIP on Android actually working)
15:00:06 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:19 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aacc
15:00:20 <altintas> altintas has joined #prov
15:00:35 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
15:00:46 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aadd
15:01:17 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
15:01:18 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:01:34 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aaee
15:01:37 <ilkayaltintas> i'm calling via Skype so I don't know what my area code is
15:02:03 <Zakim> + +329331aaff
15:02:13 <dgarijo> Luc: Welcome and review the tf drafts
15:02:20 <Luc>
15:02:37 <dgarijo> ... accept the minutes of last week's telecon
15:02:41 <ericstephan> +1
15:02:42 <dgarijo> dgarijo: +1
15:02:43 <smiles> +1
15:02:43 <SamCoppens> Zakim, +329331aaff is me
15:02:47 <zednik> +1
15:02:48 <jun> +1
15:02:48 <satya> Luc: Accept the minutes for last telcon
15:02:49 <tlebo> +1
15:02:49 <olaf> +1
15:02:51 <dcorsar> +1
15:02:52 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:53 <ilkayaltintas> +1
15:02:55 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aagg
15:03:08 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov
15:03:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:13 <olaf> zakim, aagg is me
15:03:17 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:03:21 <jun> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:03:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference
15:03:29 <jorn> +1
15:03:35 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:03:35 <Zakim> +??P29
15:03:41 <Luc> A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval. Statements denoting this duration are optional.
15:03:48 <dgarijo> Luc: record the votes that took place during the week
15:03:52 <Luc>
15:03:53 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:03:54 <stain> I didn't vote as I was not here last week - but neither was ilkayaltintas :)
15:03:57 <Zakim> +??P24
15:03:57 <dgarijo> ... on the mailing list
15:04:01 <Zakim> +olaf; got it
15:04:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:04:22 <dgarijo> ... review actions
15:04:27 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
15:04:34 <paulo> paulo has joined #prov
15:04:40 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:04:47 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh
15:04:49 <dgarijo> ... 2 actions for the coordinators of tf
15:05:01 <dgarijo> Luc: were completed during the week
15:05:03 <Zakim> -??P24
15:05:11 <jcheney> zakim, ??P24 is me
15:05:25 <dgarijo> Luc: the last item is that we are still need scribe volunteers
15:05:26 <Zakim> +??P7
15:05:35 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
<luc>TOPIC: Connection TF Plan to F2F1
<luc>Summary: Timetable was was discussed. Everyone is invited to create a documentation of some group that might be a connection by using the DCMI example and adjusts it if needed. A catalog of relevant initiatives will be collated for F2F1.
15:05:36 <dgarijo> Luc: Connection Task Force
15:05:38 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P7 is really me
15:05:42 <Zakim> +??P9
15:05:53 <Zakim> I already had ??P24 as ??P24, jcheney
15:06:04 <dgarijo> ericstephan: update on the Connection TF & time table
15:06:23 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:06:24 <Luc>
15:06:30 <dgarijo> ericstephan: meeting yesterday
15:06:35 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aaii
15:06:41 <dgarijo> ... developed a timetible
15:06:58 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:07:01 <dgarijo> ... for the next 2 weeks we are going to gather info about ppossible connections
15:07:05 <edsu> zakim, LC is edsu
15:07:14 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov
15:07:17 <dgarijo> ... using the template provided by kai
15:07:17 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540 is me
15:07:24 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:07:26 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:07:42 <dgarijo> ... search possible "clients" to use the PIL
15:07:51 <Zakim> +edsu; got it
15:08:04 <Luc> q?
15:08:05 <dgarijo> Luc: have you identified contributors 
15:08:09 <dgarijo> ... ?
15:08:10 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:08:20 <dgarijo> ... have you an online template already?
15:08:48 <dgarijo> ericstephan: if anybody has one possible connection please contact the connection task force
15:08:49 <Luc> q?
15:08:52 <pgroth> +q
15:08:55 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aajj
15:08:58 <dgarijo> +q
15:09:00 <pgroth> q?
15:09:05 <Zakim> +??P13
15:09:06 <Luc> q?
15:09:11 <Zakim> +??P10
15:09:14 <dgarijo> pgroth: there is a template on the proposal page
15:09:16 <pgroth> q-
15:09:21 <YolandaGil> q?
15:09:27 <Luc> ack dgarijo
15:09:30 <dgarijo> q-
15:09:30 <Luc> q?
15:10:09 <Luc> q?
15:10:24 <jorn> note irc being very laggy atm
15:10:26 <dgarijo> YolandaGil: just wondering where to put the contributions?
15:10:39 <stephen> stephen has joined #prov
15:10:47 <pgroth> +q
15:10:57 <dgarijo> ericstephan: want to do a catalogue with one page per possible connection
15:11:00 <pgroth> q-
15:11:06 <Luc> q?
15:11:12 <dgarijo> Luc: add the entrypoints to the page, so anyone can contribute
15:11:58 <Luc> q?
15:12:09 <dgarijo> ... as a wg, we want to see how our model relates to other initievives (DC, etc). Are we going to start that work?
15:12:43 <dgarijo> ericstephan: the model is evolving right now, so for now  we will focus on possible collaborators
15:13:44 <dgarijo> Luc: that work would tell us which properties should the PIL tackle too
15:13:59 <Zakim> -jorn
15:14:16 <Zakim> +??P41
15:14:23 <dgarijo> ericstephan: yes, we'll be sensitive to that
15:14:23 <jorn> zakim, ??p41 is me
15:14:23 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:14:30 <pgroth> +q
15:14:44 <dgarijo> ... to the needs of other communities
15:15:05 <Luc> q?
15:15:15 <dgarijo> Luc: it doesn't have to be a detailed analysis
15:15:22 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:15:46 <dgarijo> pgroth: in the template there are already fields in the line of work proposed by Luc
15:16:23 <dgarijo> ericstephan: Kai has already tracked that
15:16:48 <dgarijo> Luc: who is going to contribute to what?
15:17:22 <dgarijo> ericstephan: 5 people contributing to the call yesterday, with different ideas/areas/interests
15:17:28 <Luc> q?
15:18:12 <Zakim> +??P1
15:18:14 <dgarijo> ... if anyone is interested, you don't have to belong to the tf to participate or provide pointers
15:18:16 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
<luc>TOPIC: Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1
15:18:35 <dgarijo> Luc: Implementation & test cases Task Force
<luc>Summary: It is proposed that potential applications (within or outside the WG) that may implement the standard are identified. Template needs to be finalized. Members are invited to contribute information to the wiki.
15:18:42 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the situation?
#15:18:56 <Luc> Regrets+ Helena Deus
15:19:10 <dgarijo> zednik: yet to have a call.
15:19:18 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:19:29 <dgarijo> ... to focus the direction/test cases / requirements
15:19:58 <Luc> q?
15:20:04 <pgroth> +q
15:20:07 <Luc> q?
15:20:10 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:20:13 <ericstephan> +q
15:21:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: be able to identify provenance systems that already use provenance.
15:22:10 <dgarijo> pgroth: Implementor: somebody that would include our model in the system
15:22:12 <Luc> ack ericstephan
15:22:20 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:22:21 <dgarijo> zednik: aka user
15:22:52 <dgarijo> ericstephan: some of the work of the connection tf is connected to the use cases
15:23:00 <Luc> q?
15:23:26 <dgarijo> ... maybe it is useful to detect potential clients
15:24:11 <dgarijo> zednik: we can do this, but it is not a big task.
15:24:17 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be useful info to gather
15:24:49 <Luc> q?
15:24:50 <dgarijo> zednik: create a list of user who would be able to oncorpore the spec
15:25:32 <dgarijo> Luc: there is a bit of overlap between tf, but it is not necessarily a concern
15:25:37 <Luc> q?
15:26:07 <dgarijo> Luc: next Item. Provenance access & query TF
15:26:12 <Luc> q?
15:26:21 <Luc> TOPIC: PAQ TF Plan to F2F1  
<luc>Summary: Some proposals  have already been submitted to the wiki. Further contributions are welcome. WG members are invited to review and comment on the proposals, by email or on the wiki.
15:26:31 <dgarijo> smiles: no comments about the template
15:26:48 <dgarijo> ... GK and Luc have added some proposals to the TF
15:26:55 <Luc> q?
15:26:58 <dgarijo> ... we need comments for the proposals
15:27:24 <dgarijo> ... are they clear/not clear? please comment on them
15:27:26 <Zakim> -??P38
15:27:37 <Luc> q?
15:27:56 <dgarijo> ... send comments also to the mailing list
15:27:56 <Yogesh> q+
15:27:58 <Luc> q?
15:28:06 <Zakim> +??P8
15:28:14 <stain> Zakim: +??P8 is me
15:28:15 <pgroth> yogesh?
15:28:21 <Luc> ack yogesh
15:28:43 <jun>
15:28:47 <Luc> q?
15:29:30 <dgarijo> Luc: wiki or on the mailing list?
15:29:31 <pgroth> +q
15:29:44 <Zakim> -jorn
15:29:59 <pgroth> q-
15:30:14 <Luc> q?
15:30:20 <dgarijo> smiles: wiki, but no objections to mailing list
15:30:25 <Luc> q?
15:31:03 <Luc> TOPIC: Model TF Plan to F2F1  
<luc>Summary: Curation is to start week commencing 22nd.  WG members are invited to submit their definitions and comments on definitions.
15:31:04 <dgarijo> Luc: everybody can comment even if it is not on your tf
15:31:11 <dgarijo> Luc: Model TF
15:31:19 <jun>
15:32:16 <dgarijo> satya: there were discussions on the mailing list
15:32:19 <Zakim> +??P21
15:32:24 <dgarijo> ... people can comment on the wiki pages
15:32:32 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me
15:32:32 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:32:37 <Luc> q?
15:32:42 <dgarijo> ... or send an email to the mailing list
15:33:41 <dgarijo> Luc: the curation process. It would be nice to have some comments as to why we are not adopting a definition. Is something you are planning to do?
#15:33:43 <dgarijo> ... ?
15:34:48 <dgarijo> khalid: group concepts that people have agreed on
15:35:12 <Zakim> +??P60
15:35:19 <dgarijo> satya: for the f2f try to constraint the journalist example & the concepts that model the example
15:35:25 <stain> Zakim: +??P60 is me
15:36:18 <pgroth> q+
15:36:37 <dgarijo> Luc: khalid proposed a definition of derivation. It would be useful to add comments why this def has been revised in terms of IVPT
15:36:46 <dgarijo> pgroth: Jun's definition of derivation is a good model for tracking the updates of definitions
15:36:55 <Luc> q?
15:36:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok, 
15:37:02 <dgarijo> Luc: where to put these comments is up to you :)
15:37:05 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:37:19 <Luc> q?
15:38:00 <pgroth> +1 yes thank you coordinators
15:38:00 <Luc> TOPIC: Model Task Force  
<luc> Summary: Consensus was reached on two proposals: a) Process executions start in the past, b)   Initial definitions for the concept "Thing" and the relation "Invariant View or Perspective of".  It was agreed that decisions are not final, but are a way to move forward to allows us to define other core concepts of the provenance interchange language.
15:38:33 <dgarijo> Luc: properties to gather consensus
15:38:45 <Luc> 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.
15:38:47 <dgarijo> Luc: paul sent a proposal to vote
15:39:29 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be nice to reach consensus here
15:39:58 <dgarijo> Luc: suggestion by Simon to add additional info to the definition
15:40:33 <Luc> q?
15:41:00 <Luc> 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, from the position of any assertion made about it.
15:41:21 <jcheney> q+
15:41:25 <dgarijo> Luc: should it be rephrased?
15:41:28 <Luc> ack jcheney
15:41:32 <Zakim> + +1.650.386.aakk
15:42:00 <Luc> q?
15:42:05 <dgarijo> jcheney: if we approve this now is it going to be definitive or just agreeing on terminology as a starting point
15:42:07 <dgarijo> ... ?
15:42:10 <pgroth> q+ to respond to that
15:42:16 <Luc> q?
15:42:19 <dgarijo> ... maybe it will contraint us later
15:42:40 <Luc> q?
15:42:44 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:42:44 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond to that
15:43:06 <Christine> +q
15:43:22 <jcheney> q-
15:43:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: to get a set of terminology to agree in the beggining. Doesn't mean that we can't change it later, but just to understand us right now
15:43:32 <dgarijo> Luc: agrees
15:43:48 <satya> q+
15:43:57 <Luc> ack Christine
15:44:15 <Christine> -q
15:44:16 <YolandaGil> Why don't you make these plans explicit, ie, say somewhere when will you allow a cycle of revisions to the model
15:44:21 <Christine> q-
15:44:24 <dgarijo> Christine: might be more useful to separate process execution in the past from the one is now occurring
15:44:27 <dgarijo> Luc: why?
15:44:38 <pgroth> Yolanda, good point
15:44:54 <Luc> q?
15:44:54 <dgarijo> Christine: it would make it easier to understand by the community.
15:45:13 <Luc> ack Christine
15:45:43 <dgarijo> introduction of Ralph Hodgson a future new memeber for the group.
15:45:46 <pgroth> welcome, ralph
15:46:03 <dgarijo> has not joined yet
15:46:15 <Luc> q?
15:46:34 <pgroth> absolutely
15:46:46 <Luc> ack satya
15:46:53 <satya> ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it
15:47:03 <dgarijo> satya: small modification to de definition
15:47:16 <dgarijo> ... simon's definition
15:47:28 <ralphtq> ralphtq has joined #prov
15:47:43 <Luc> q?
15:47:46 <Zakim> -jorn
15:47:49 <dgarijo> Luc: anyone has any problems with that?
15:47:55 <Luc> q?
15:48:02 <Zakim> +??P21
15:48:08 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me
15:48:08 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:48:36 <jorn> zakim, aakk is maybe ralphtq
15:48:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk is maybe ralphtq', jorn
15:48:44 <dgarijo> satya: time dimension is always involved
15:48:50 <jorn> zakim, aakk maybe is ralphtq
15:48:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk maybe is ralphtq', jorn
15:49:00 <smiles> 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.
15:49:10 <dgarijo> smiles: posts a suggestion to the definition
15:49:27 <stain> what is 'the past' ? 
15:49:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. 
15:49:44 <ralphtq> I am the person that asked about joining the call
15:49:57 <ralphtq> my email is
15:49:57 <dgarijo> Luc: vote on this proposal
15:49:58 <satya> +1
15:50:02 <jun> +1
15:50:03 <jorn> +1
15:50:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:50:04 <SamCoppens> +1
15:50:04 <dgarijo> dgarijo: +1
15:50:05 <stain> 0
15:50:05 <jcheney> +1
15:50:07 <olaf> +1
15:50:09 <Yogesh> +1
15:50:10 <dcorsar> +1
15:50:11 <smiles> +1 (though probably could still be phrased better)
15:50:13 <tlebo> +1
15:50:14 <Edoardo> +1
15:50:17 <ilkayaltintas> +1
15:50:18 <zednik> +1
15:50:18 <tfrancart> 0
15:50:27 <JimM> +1  - provenance is past tense
15:50:32 <YolandaGil> +1
15:50:39 <Christine> Christine: not voting (the definition would benefit from some rephrasing for clarity)
15:50:39 <jorn> zakim, aakk may be ralphtq
15:50:39 <Zakim> +ralphtq?; got it
15:50:48 <Luc> ACCEPTED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. 
15:50:56 <Luc> q?
15:51:22 <dgarijo> Luc: discussion on resources and IVPT
15:51:37 <Luc>  1. We began definitions using resources, but were not progressing, because there is no universal definition of resource, and challenge with dealing with stateful resources 2. Two weeks ago, we decided to separate web architecture discussions from model discussions 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist.  Hence, we introduced the 
15:51:44 <dgarijo> ... would like to paste a small summary of the discussions from the mailing list
15:52:16 <dgarijo> ... 1 duscussion on resources, but got stuck 
15:52:42 <ralphtq> my work is on the web as VOAG - Vocabulary of Attribution and Governance (this currently includes some Provenance concepts) - see
15:52:42 <dgarijo> ... there is no universal agreement on resource, and the state of the resources.
15:52:56 <dgarijo> ... then we separated the discussions 
15:53:06 <dgarijo> ... arch/model
15:53:14 <Luc> 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist.  Hence, we introduced the idea of "Invariant View or Perspective on Thing" (IVPT) 
15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... we recognised that we needed to have something immutable to assert provenance
15:53:46 <ralphtq> I finish my introduction with this link to my web page - I am the second person listed -
15:53:54 <Luc> 4. Last WE's discussions between Jim and I were about whether IVPT was a type on its own, distinct from other things 
15:54:16 <dgarijo> ... idea of IVPT. Generation in terms of IVPT
15:54:43 <dgarijo> ... IVPT as a new concept, different than anything that we had
15:54:51 <Luc> 5. I was convinced  by Jim's argument that there is only a concept of "thing" with properties that are stable with respect to other things.  So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between types.   
15:55:15 <Luc> but a relationship between things.
15:55:22 <dgarijo> ... So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between things
15:55:22 <Luc> 6. We came up with the definition 
15:55:47 <dgarijo> ... have a Luc at this definition and provide feedback
15:56:08 <dgarijo> s/ Luc /look
15:56:30 <dgarijo> Luc: it is my perspective
15:56:49 <Christine> What do you mean by "identity" in this context?
15:57:13 <dgarijo> ... using invariant properties and mutable properties
15:57:22 <dgarijo> ... first definition of thing
15:57:49 <dgarijo> ... relationship between things
15:57:51 <Luc> q?
15:57:56 <ralphtq> I raise my hand to speak about SBFI and distinctions between Perspective, Viewpoint and Aspect
15:57:57 <Luc> q?
15:57:57 <dgarijo> ... a thing can be invariant from another
15:57:58 <pgroth> christine
15:57:59 <Christine> q+
15:58:19 <dgarijo> Christine: whta is identity in this context?
15:58:30 <jorn> s/whta/what
15:58:35 <jorn> s/whta/what/
15:58:42 <dgarijo> Luc: to me, it's the ability to distinguish 2 entities
15:58:45 <Zakim> -Yolanda
15:59:11 <ralphtq> SBFI stands for Structure, Behavior, Function adn Interface/Interaction - dimensions that characterize a system + BDI - Beliefs, Desires and Intentions
15:59:21 <dgarijo> Christine: identity is diferent from identification
15:59:25 <Luc> he collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known:
16:00:01 <ralphtq> DOCLE ontology defines endurants and perdurants - are you wanting to be that deep about the nature of the world?
16:00:03 <dgarijo> Luc: identity: the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known
16:00:05 <ralphtq> DOLCE
16:00:16 <Luc> q?
16:00:20 <pgroth> +q
16:00:20 <Christine> q-
16:00:27 <Luc> ack pgroth
16:01:00 <Luc> q?
16:01:06 <satya> @Christine: Can we limit the scope of the definition to the journalism example for now?
16:01:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: reasonable, but concerned that it might be to deepas a definitio.
16:01:23 <Luc> q?
16:01:27 <Luc> q?
16:01:36 <Luc> q?
16:01:38 <ralphtq> q+
16:01:43 <JimM> q+
16:01:54 <Christine> Paul, understand the need to reach consensus on language for definition
16:02:01 <dgarijo> Luc: not trying to get a final def today
16:02:35 <dgarijo> Luc: but process exectution, generation, etc will refer to thing
16:02:46 <Luc> q?
16:02:47 <satya> q+
16:02:50 <Christine> Perhaps we just need to briefly explain "identity" as it is used here
16:02:55 <Luc> ack ralphtq
16:02:58 <dgarijo> ... we should get agreement asap, but not necessarily today
16:03:29 <Luc> q?
16:03:30 <Zakim> -jorn
16:03:47 <Zakim> +??P0
16:03:48 <Luc> q?
16:04:04 <jorn> zakim, ??p0 is me
16:04:04 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
16:04:27 <dgarijo> ralph: entity/thing. The DOLCE ontology has concepts to model some of the concepts endurants/perdurants
16:04:45 <Luc> q?
16:05:01 <dgarijo> ... viewpoints helps with the notion of identity
16:05:09 <Luc> q?
16:05:19 <dgarijo> ... because it is driven by context.
16:05:41 <satya> @ralph: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has similar concepts called continuants/occurrent
16:05:42 <dgarijo> ... desires to have a lightweight notion for provenance
16:05:59 <pgroth> thanks ralph
16:06:12 <Luc> ack JimM
16:07:03 <dgarijo> JimM: we have the use cases and we are looking for the lightweight notion to cover the user cases.
16:07:11 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:07:16 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:07:27 <Zakim> -jorn
16:07:43 <satya> q-
16:08:07 <dgarijo> JimM: been trying to put consitent defs of all the concepts.
16:08:18 <JimM> q-
16:08:36 <Luc> ack satya
16:08:43 <dgarijo> satya: +1 to a lightweight notion to cover the use cases
16:08:53 <dgarijo> (+1 to that too)
16:09:16 <Luc> Proposed: to use a notion of thing  as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
16:09:32 <smiles> +1
16:09:37 <zednik> +1
16:09:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:09:39 <dgarijo> Luc: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki
16:09:44 <stain> +1
16:09:46 <dgarijo> 0
16:09:47 <jcheney> +1
16:09:54 <JimM> +1
16:09:56 <tfrancart> +1
16:09:57 <Edoardo> +1
16:10:01 <olaf> +1
16:10:09 <SamCoppens> +1
16:10:09 <ericstephan> +1
16:10:12 <Yogesh> +1
16:10:18 <jun> +1
16:10:18 <ilkayaltintas> +1
16:10:28 <satya> 0
16:10:28 <ralphtq> +1
16:10:30 <Christine> 0
#16:10:44 <Luc> accepted: Proposed: to use a notion of thing ( as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
16:11:09 <Luc> accepted: to use a notion of thing  as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
16:11:16 <dgarijo> Luc: we don't have unanimity
16:11:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we really should back to this def once we have a consistent set of definitions
16:12:10 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh
16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aacc
16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aaee
16:12:11 <Zakim> -jun
16:12:11 <Zakim> -edsu
16:12:12 <Luc> q?
16:12:13 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:12:16 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:12:18 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:12:19 <Zakim> -??P40
16:12:20 <dgarijo> Luc: now we can revise the other defs according to this one. Look forwardto see your contributions
16:12:21 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aajj
16:12:23 <Zakim> -??P60
16:12:25 <Zakim> -olaf
16:12:27 <Zakim> -??P1
16:12:29 <Zakim> -smiles
16:12:33 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:12:35 <Zakim> -??P13
16:12:38 <Zakim> -Ralph Hodgson
16:12:41 <ralphtq> yes
16:12:43 <Zakim> -??P9
16:12:46 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aadd
16:12:46 <Luc> daniel, i can do the necessary incantations and have it for you to edit on the wiki
16:13:07 <ralphtq> zakim - did you want to ask me something?
16:13:55 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
16:14:04 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:14:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Luc
16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 
16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to for help