From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:51:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:51:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-prov-irc 14:51:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:51:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:51:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:51:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:51:30 <trackbot> Date: 21 July 2011 14:51:34 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:51:36 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:51:44 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.07.21 14:51:54 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:52:22 <Luc> Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan 14:52:31 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:52:36 <Luc> Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference and of F2F meeting were approved. It was agreed that outstanding F2F actions related to the model should be converted into issues against the model. 14:52:45 <Luc> Regrets: Eric Stephan 14:52:49 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:53:16 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:53:23 <Zakim> +??P2 14:53:25 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 14:53:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2 14:53:35 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P2 is me 14:53:36 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:54:01 <pgroth> Luc have you set up the call? 14:54:33 <Luc> yes 14:55:22 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:55:38 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa 14:55:50 <Zakim> +??P8 14:55:52 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 14:55:56 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me 14:55:56 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:56:01 <Zakim> +??P14 14:56:10 <Luc> yogesh, everything is set up for scribin 14:56:29 <Paolo> zakim, ??P14 is me 14:56:29 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:56:45 <Paolo> zakim, mute me 14:56:45 <Zakim> Paolo should now be muted 14:57:12 <Zakim> + +1.443.987.aabb 14:57:29 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:57:32 <Zakim> +??P18 14:57:39 <stain> Zakim: ??P18 is me 14:57:47 <stain> Zakim, ??P18 is me 14:57:47 <Zakim> +stain; got it 14:58:30 <stain> Zakim, who is noisy? 14:58:41 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (38%) 14:58:56 <stain> (I'm just never sure if I get my mute button the right way around!) 14:59:04 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aacc 14:59:23 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov 14:59:24 <satya> satya has joined #prov 14:59:37 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aadd 14:59:49 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:00:06 <Zakim> +Kingsley_Idehen 15:00:09 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:00:19 <MacTed> Zakim, Kingsley_Idehen is OpenLink_Software 15:00:19 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it 15:00:24 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:00:25 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:25 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:00:30 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:00:30 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:00:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540.449 is me 15:00:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it 15:00:41 <Zakim> +??P36 15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P28 15:00:51 <jcheney> Zakin, ??P36 is me 15:00:56 <jcheney> Zakim, ??P36 is me 15:00:56 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:00:59 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:01:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo (muted), +1.443.987.aabb, stain, +1.315.330.aacc, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, ??P28 15:01:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot 15:01:11 <Zakim> + +1.512.524.aaee 15:01:23 <Helena> Zakim, ??P28 is Helena 15:01:23 <Zakim> +Helena; got it 15:01:31 <Zakim> +??P55 15:01:39 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 15:01:50 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P55 is me 15:01:54 <rgolden> rgolden has joined #prov 15:01:55 <Yogesh> zakim, i am scribe 15:01:59 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:02:02 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:02:03 <Zakim> sorry, Yogesh, I do not see a party named 'scribe' #15:02:17 <Zakim> +Ronald 15:02:27 <Yogesh> Luc: agenda for today 15:02:31 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaff 15:02:41 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 15:02:48 <Yogesh> Helena: Stephan is almost done with report. Discuss what is there is wiki. 15:02:51 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 15:03:04 <Yogesh> Luc: will review future plans. its on agenda. 15:03:15 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aagg 15:03:16 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/07/16/results_of_the_provenance_wg_first_f2f_m 15:03:23 <Yogesh> scribe: yogesh 15:03:57 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-06 15:03:57 <Yogesh> Pgroth: please advertise activities of the group. URL is in irc 15:03:59 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:04:04 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-07 15:04:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:04:23 <Paolo> +1 15:04:25 <jcheney> +1 15:04:28 <Helena> +1 15:04:30 <Yogesh> Luc: support for minutes 15:04:30 <satya> +1 15:04:30 <rgolden> +1 15:04:36 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov 15:04:38 <tlebo> zakim, I am aacc 15:04:40 <Yogesh> +1 15:04:42 <olaf> +1 15:04:45 <tlebo> +1 15:04:45 <stain> 0 \: Didn't attend day 2 15:05:02 <zednik> +1 15:05:10 <Zakim> +??P5 15:05:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 15:05:14 <Zakim> +??P6 15:05:15 <tlebo> zakim, aacc is tlebo 15:05:16 <Edoardo> +1 15:05:18 <GK> 0 (only there part time) 15:05:29 <dcorsar> +1 15:05:34 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of F2F1 15:05:45 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-14 15:05:47 <Zakim> sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' #15:05:48 <Yogesh> Topic: Admin 15:05:49 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:05:50 <tlebo> zakim, +1.315.330 is me 15:05:56 <Zakim> -??P5 15:06:02 <Paolo> +1 15:06:03 <satya> +1 15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:06:04 <Zakim> sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named '+1.315.330' 15:06:04 <tlebo> +1 #15:06:07 <Yogesh> Subtopic: accept the minutes of 14 Jul telecon 15:06:08 <olaf> +1 15:06:08 <Yogesh> +1 15:06:09 <stain> 0 (away) 15:06:11 <jcheney> +1 15:06:16 <Zakim> +??P5 15:06:19 <Helena> +1 15:06:19 <GK> Zakim is being very slow/temperamental today 15:06:25 <zednik> 0 (Did not attend last week) 15:06:28 <GK> Zakim, ??P5 is me 15:06:30 <rgolden> +1 15:06:37 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:06:38 <dcorsar> +1 15:06:38 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh 15:06:38 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:06:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo (muted), +1.443.987.aabb, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame #15:06:47 <Luc> Approved: last week's teleconference minutes 15:06:48 <Zakim> ... +1.518.633.aaff, +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh 15:06:49 <Zakim> +??P12 15:06:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, 15:06:54 <Yogesh> RESOLVED: last week's minutes approved 15:06:58 <Zakim> ... stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot 15:07:08 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P12 is me 15:07:08 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:07:10 <GK> I'm not seeing an agenda for today in the wiki 15:07:10 <Yogesh> Luc: need scribes for future. please volunteer 15:07:14 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov 15:07:22 <pgroth> agenda is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.07.21 15:07:22 <Luc> Topic: Discuss Plans for Connection Task Force <luc>Summary: no significant progress on this front. #15:07:29 <Yogesh> topic: Discuss Plans for Connection Task Force 15:07:34 <Zakim> +??P9 15:07:48 <Curt> Zakim, +1.443.987.aabb is me 15:07:50 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 15:07:51 <Yogesh> Pgroth: Eric left note that eric, yolanda and kai are away 15:07:55 <Zakim> +Curt; got it 15:07:59 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:08:11 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:08:14 <GK> The date in the agenda is incorrect 15:08:27 <Yogesh> Luc: Eric asked if we could identify who can work on the conection task force report for Sep 15:08:47 <pgroth> q+ 15:09:24 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:09:29 <Yogesh> Pgroth: we did this last week. several has said yes. Those who signed up last week should put their names on the wiki 15:09:34 <pgroth> q- 15:09:38 <jcheney> We had volunteers for model and impl task forces only... 15:09:42 <MacTed> GK - I fixed the agenda date 15:10:02 <Luc> Topic: Discuss Plans for Implementation Task Force <luc>Summary: Helena presented the summary of the survey. The issue of privacy was raised, and the coordinators are going to check with stakeholders whether information can be publicly released. It is proposed to gather further information, and identify requirements to inform the activities of the WG. A plan will be drafted and circulated for discussion. 15:10:04 <Yogesh> Pgroth: will extract those who signed up last week from the minutes and send to Eric 15:10:09 <GK> @MacTed thanks - was confusing me :) #15:10:15 <Yogesh> topic: Discuss Plans for Implementation Task Force 15:10:38 <Helena> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Implementation_Stakeholder_Questionnaire_Response_Report 15:10:55 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:11:10 <Zakim> + +1.714.454.aaii 15:11:26 <Yogesh> Helena: We may not be gowing as detailed in the report. Should add more details. What are the expectations. Hope the survey will help. 15:11:32 <Zakim> + +1.860.673.aajj 15:11:46 <Yogesh> s/gowing/going/ 15:11:49 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov 15:12:05 <Reza> Reza has joined #prov 15:12:25 <Yogesh> Helena: list of orgs that answered survey and the role/field of people 15:12:27 <pgroth> q+ 15:12:47 <Yogesh> Helen: sah people who are willing to implement and the language 15:12:57 <zednik> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Implementation_Stakeholder_Questionnaire_Response_Report 15:12:59 <Reza> Reza has joined #prov 15:13:41 <Yogesh> Helena: members to add/edit the wiki table to address their concerns 15:13:50 <Luc> q? 15:13:56 <Yogesh> ...Excel spreadsheet with freetext responses is available 15:14:28 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:14:31 <rgolden> Have a concern about privacy also 15:14:35 <Yogesh> Pgroth: did questionaire say the responses will be made public? 15:14:48 <Yogesh> Helena: We assumed people will not mind. 15:14:58 <rgolden> It is easy to identify the person from the organization and organization field 15:15:00 <dgarijo> +q 15:15:34 <Christine> My concern would be that at least some of the information may be personal data 15:15:44 <Yogesh> Pgroth: best thing may be to contact stakeholders to ask if they mind, esp. the freetext response. We can try to make this report members-only in the meanwhile. 15:15:44 <MacTed> q+ 15:15:55 <Yogesh> Helena: will contact the stakeholders 15:16:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:16:05 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 15:16:09 <Yogesh> Luc: can we make a wiki document members-only? 15:16:48 <Yogesh> Sandro: not on the wiki. is possible in w3c site. may not be a way to remove wiki page from history even if deleted. 15:17:08 <Luc> q? 15:17:08 <MacTed> was there any assurance of privacy *given* in the questionnaire? 15:17:20 <Helena> no 15:17:37 <Yogesh> Sandro: we can delete wiki page in good faith while we get responses, and figure out other options. 15:17:57 <pgroth> and the organization information 15:17:57 <pgroth> ! 15:18:01 <jcheney> the page will still be recoverable in the wiki history... 15:18:06 <Luc> q? 15:18:10 <MacTed> q- 15:18:11 <Luc> ack dgarijo 15:18:16 <jcheney> but if we delete now it won't get indexed by search engines 15:18:29 <GK> Copy+keep the wiki-markup content deleted! 15:18:51 <Yogesh> Helena: gathered info from outsiders to help modeling group see if we address requirements 15:18:52 <Luc> q? 15:19:02 <rgolden> q+ 15:19:11 <Luc> ack rgolden 15:19:36 <Yogesh> Ryan: should ensure that there is no personally identifiable info. 15:19:38 <Christine> +1 to ryan's comment 15:20:00 <sandro> q? 15:20:13 <pgroth> q+ 15:20:14 <Yogesh> ...also add disclaimer on how we use personally id info 15:20:31 <Luc> ack pg 15:20:44 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:20:45 <Yogesh> Pgroth: be clear about how we use it. 15:20:59 <pgroth> but very cool 15:21:03 <Yogesh> Helena: can delete current page and put back info once we have ack from stakeholders 15:21:10 <pgroth> very cool report 15:21:23 <Yogesh> Luc: is there a clear plan for the task force? 15:21:49 <Yogesh> Luc: is there a clear plan for the task force? 15:21:54 <Yogesh> Helena: no lined up plan yet. need to identify who understands the model and can help us go over the list to see what is being addressed. 15:22:03 <Yogesh> Luc: can we put that as an agenda for next week? 15:22:18 <Luc> action: helena to produce plan for implementation task force 15:22:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Produce plan for implementation task force [on Helena Deus - due 2011-07-28]. 15:22:20 <Luc> q? 15:22:50 <Zakim> +??P35 15:22:51 <Yogesh> Luc: intent was to identify gaps in model, act as requirements. What is mechanism? 15:23:06 <jorn> zakim, ??p35 is me 15:23:06 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:23:14 <Luc> q? 15:23:36 <Yogesh> Helena: use them to improve use cases. See whats in the model that can be used by stakeholders. Test cases 15:23:54 <Yogesh> Luc: is this after the first working draft, when we go back to stakeholders? 15:23:58 <Yogesh> Helena: yes 15:24:16 <Luc> q? 15:24:17 <Yogesh> ...will put this in the plan, even if this is done after Sep 15:24:25 <pgroth> Fantastic work Helena and Stephan 15:24:38 <Yogesh> Luc: +1 15:24:38 <Luc> topic: Towards first public working drafts <luc>Summary: Luc reiterated the approach the WG is going to follow to produce FPWDs. Documents are being released at this call for internal discussion. Issues have to be raised against these documents, and they will be tracked through the tracker. 15:25:10 <MacTed> is there a closing date on response submissions? should perhaps note that on the questionnaire, if nowhere else 15:25:33 <Yogesh> Luc: 2 public working drafts: prov models and formalization/ontology 15:26:01 <Yogesh> Luc: agreed at F2F1 that accessing provenance will also be available in Sep 15:26:32 <Yogesh> Luc: GK has produced first draft for PAQ, Luc and Paolo done same for model 15:26:49 <Yogesh> Luc: please identify concern with the draft and ideally make counter proposal 15:27:09 <Yogesh> Luc: document will evolve as issues come up in email and discuss over phone call 15:27:16 <pgroth> also please mention the issue number in your emails 15:27:21 <Luc> q? 15:27:28 <pgroth> q+ 15:27:29 <GK> q+ to note that we can make agreements in email too 15:27:39 <stain> +1 - specially due to holidays 15:27:43 <Yogesh> Luc: any process question? 15:27:52 <pgroth> q- 15:27:58 <rgolden> q+ 15:28:09 <Luc> ack pgroth 15:28:11 <Yogesh> Luc: please raise issue using tracker that will generate issue number 15:28:41 <Yogesh> GK: preference for resolving things by emails rather than telecon 15:29:02 <Luc> ack GK 15:29:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that we can make agreements in email too 15:29:03 <Yogesh> Luc: will have to reach consensus as group. if it emerges from email, we should try and get approval on email. 15:29:29 <Yogesh> Luc: chairs and editors will curate issues as they are raised 15:29:31 <satya> q+ 15:29:36 <Luc> ack rgo 15:29:53 <Yogesh> rgolden: was graphical language in the specification? 15:30:12 <Yogesh> Luc: (yes) will talk about it in model task force plans when paolo reports 15:30:17 <Luc> q? 15:30:22 <Luc> ack saty 15:30:52 <Yogesh> satya: there was a vote on some definitions over email, but we seem to revisit them 15:31:17 <GK> I think the repeating definition threads will get easier once we focus on the actual draft documents 15:31:20 <Zakim> +??P39 15:31:41 <stain> Zakim: ??P39 is me 15:31:44 <Luc> q? 15:31:47 <stain> Zakim, ??P39 is me 15:31:47 <Zakim> +stain; got it 15:31:49 <satya> ok 15:31:51 <Yogesh> Luc: nature of standardization WG. new people or those who were not present. Unvoidable. Will potentially have people from outside group raise issues once we publish the drafts 15:31:54 <satya> yes thanks! 15:32:06 <Luc> topic: Discuss Plans for Provenance Access and Query Task Force <luc>Summary: Graham released a document for Provenance Access for internal discussion. This document is to be reviewed in the context of the ProvenanceAccessScenario agreed at the face to face meeting. 15:32:24 <GK> PAQ document on W3C site: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html 15:32:24 <GK> Announcement http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/0162.html 15:32:39 <Yogesh> GK: has put draft at W3C mercurial wiki 15:32:58 <Luc> Pointers to working drafts from WG page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts 15:33:19 <Yogesh> GK: changes status to editors draft and tidied up things since the last version 15:33:46 <Paolo> zakim, unmute me 15:33:46 <Zakim> Paolo should no longer be muted 15:34:05 <Yogesh> Luc: members should identify aspects of doc that do not support scenario or is out of scope 15:34:06 <Luc> q? 15:34:24 <Yogesh> q+ 15:34:37 <Yogesh> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario 15:34:59 <pgroth> ack Yogesh 15:35:25 <Yogesh> want to make sure there are no concerns with the scenario itself 15:35:26 <pgroth> q+ 15:35:53 <Yogesh> Pgroth: we agreed line by line 15:36:03 <Yogesh> q+ 15:36:04 <GK> q+ to note that not every part of the functionality in the scenario is necessarily addressed directly by PAQ (e.g. "Oh yeah" button) 15:36:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:36:39 <pgroth> ah ok 15:36:52 <Yogesh> was only refering to concrete scenario 15:36:59 <Luc> ack yo 15:37:03 <Yogesh> not to the abstract that was agreed upon 15:37:32 <Yogesh> GK: draft may not have exact solutions for all parts of the scenario 15:38:05 <Yogesh> Helena: we should consider feedback from survey 15:38:17 <Zakim> -jorn 15:38:20 <pgroth> everything? 15:38:25 <Yogesh> Luc: not refering to model, but to PAQ 15:38:42 <Yogesh> GK: model and scenario are connected 15:38:43 <Luc> q? 15:38:47 <sandro> q+ to talk about previous topic for a moment (deleting wiki page) 15:38:49 <GK> q- 15:39:00 <Zakim> +??P35 15:39:01 <Luc> ack sand 15:39:01 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to talk about previous topic for a moment (deleting wiki page) 15:39:42 <Yogesh> sandro: has made backup copy of wiki and deleted entry. was easier than expected. 15:39:50 <Zakim> +??P48 15:39:53 <Luc> q? 15:39:59 <satya> q+ 15:39:59 <Yogesh> Helena: spreadsheet with raw text should also be access controlled. will send to sandro. 15:40:22 <Yogesh> topic: Discuss Plans for Model Task Force 15:40:35 <Luc> q? 15:41:24 <pgroth> what you just said 15:41:24 <Yogesh> satya: we have prov example scenario for model concepts. understanding was PAQ example was to be a subset of journalism. how are they related? 15:41:36 <GK> Provenance model draft at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html #15:41:43 <Luc> Topic: Discuss Plans for Model Task Force 15:42:06 <Luc> Subtopic: Model progress review 15:42:21 <Yogesh> Pgroth: it is considered as a subset of journalism example. Concrete scenario should show this relationship. 15:42:45 <Yogesh> Satya: should constrain ourselves to the scenario for first draft. <luc>Summary: Paolo released a Provenance Model document for internal discussions, based on consensus reached so far by the working group, and presented in a coherent manner. WG members are invited to review the document and raise issues against it on the tracker. 15:42:49 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html 15:43:14 <Yogesh> Paolo: link to latest version of draft. Link should stay current. 15:43:34 <Yogesh> ...Have worked with Luc to consolidate discussion. 15:43:37 <Luc> q? 15:43:41 <Luc> ack satya 15:43:53 <Yogesh> ...Baseline wiki page from F2F1 and additional discussion from emails since then. 15:44:07 <GK> +1 not the union of all proposals! 15:44:19 <Yogesh> ...Spirit has been to not disrupt agreements but ensure coherent document for discussion. 15:44:49 <Luc> A few comments are available from: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/note.txt 15:45:14 <Yogesh> ...Process: open to entire group for contributions to discussion. 15:45:31 <Yogesh> ...List of constructs that should be part of language. 15:45:47 <Yogesh> ...Intro e.g. is a simplified version of journalism 15:46:08 <Yogesh> ...No official syntax proposal, anything else is ok too. 15:46:39 <Luc> currently, graphical notation is not explained ... but hopefully it is understandable 15:46:41 <Yogesh> ...Sec 3.3 graphical proposal comes out naturally. Made iup, no pretense of being eventual graphical lang. 15:47:23 <GK> I would like to eliminate "bob"s from the specification... I'll try and formulate a proposal. 15:47:24 <Yogesh> ...each construct has definition and e.g. 15:47:27 <satya> @Paolo: like the graphical notation since it seems to be compatible with OWL/RDFS syntax 15:47:49 <Yogesh> ...There was discussion of IVP Of 15:47:54 <pgroth> q+ 15:47:54 <Luc> @GK, we have noted that too 15:48:23 <Yogesh> Luc: bob 15:48:25 <pgroth> I like it :-) 15:48:29 <Yogesh> ...looks bad 15:48:52 <Yogesh> Paolo: do not want to arbitrarilly choose terms till we have consensus 15:48:54 <GK> @Luc: fine... having a document to talk about makes it easier to make constructive suggestions. I'd like to *eliminate* bob, not rename. 15:49:08 <Yogesh> Luc: it would be useful to have readable text by replacing "bob" 15:49:14 <GK> Bits and bobs? 15:49:14 <Yogesh> s/test/text/ 15:49:16 <Luc> q? 15:49:54 <Luc> ack pgr 15:49:55 <Yogesh> Paolo: has been discussed in length, need to come up with something dignified. 15:50:28 <Yogesh> pgroth: question on process. Had number of model "actions". Should we eliminate them and redo them? 15:51:06 <GK> +1 replace actions with issues against documents, as appropriate 15:51:07 <Yogesh> Luc: should review actions and contact relevant people 15:51:20 <Luc> q? 15:51:55 <Yogesh> GK: action 30 should be marked complete 15:51:57 <pgroth> will go through the actions 15:52:01 <Yogesh> Luc: will do. 15:52:05 <GK> :) 15:52:27 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:52:31 <Yogesh> Luc: read document and raise issues. will discuss over email. 15:52:58 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: raise issue for even minor things? Typo? 15:53:11 <Paolo> q+ 15:53:20 <Luc> ack ka 15:53:21 <Yogesh> Luc: can be done thru mailing list so we get an archive 15:53:22 <khalidbelhajjame> -q 15:53:23 <Luc> ack kh 15:53:23 <GK> Khalid: +1 don't necessarily raise issue for non-substantive changes if note in archoce without objection. 15:53:29 <pgroth> also it's a mecurial repository 15:53:29 <Luc> ack pa 15:53:36 <GK> s/archoce/archive/ 15:53:49 <pgroth> q+ to respond 15:53:54 <Yogesh> Paolo: what is relationship between task force members and other WG members on commenting on doc? 15:54:04 <Paolo> ack 15:54:11 <Luc> we identified contributors/authors last week 15:54:26 <Zakim> -??P35 15:54:26 <GK> I expect any WG member can raise an issue against any document. 15:54:40 <pgroth> q- 15:54:41 <Yogesh> Pgroth: draft editors can ask for significant contributions from TF members. 15:54:42 <Zakim> +??P35 15:54:55 <Luc> subtopic: OWL Ontology progress review <luc>Summary: Satya indicated that an OWL ontology file will be committed in the mercurial repository by next week and that it will be followed by a document (the so-called formal model document) explaining the ontology. 15:55:43 <Yogesh> Satya: there are two ontology doc. not sure how to merge. Description of ontology and actual owl file. 15:55:55 <Paolo> q+ 15:56:21 <Yogesh> Luc: it can just be owl file in repos and check it out thru web/mercurial 15:56:42 <Yogesh> ...do we have an estimate on when we it will be ready? 15:56:44 <Paolo> @Satya: why did you do a branch rather than a module? if that makes sense 15:56:50 <GK> q+ 15:56:51 <Yogesh> Satya: by next Thu 15:57:04 <Luc> q? 15:57:09 <tlebo> is the owl file on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov ? 15:57:10 <Luc> ack paolo 15:57:12 <GK> q+ to ask about use of branch in repo for ontol 15:57:16 <GK> q- 15:57:27 <tlebo> +1 paolo's no branch request 15:57:28 <Yogesh> Paolo: why do a repos branch than a module under model? 15:57:58 <Yogesh> satya: interpreted Luc's email as need to create branch. 15:58:08 <tlebo> +1 having a module for ontology without a new branch. 15:58:16 <Yogesh> paolo: branch is hard to merge. 15:58:25 <Luc> q? 15:58:26 <Yogesh> satya: will craete module instead of new branch 15:58:40 <Yogesh> s/craete/create/ 15:58:42 <Luc> q? 15:58:48 <Paolo> @Yogesh: paOOOOOOOOlo :-) 15:58:50 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:58:54 <Luc> q? 15:58:57 <Luc> ack kha 15:59:16 <Yogesh> @Paolo sorry :) 15:59:29 <pgroth> there could be 15:59:45 <Luc> q? 15:59:51 <stain> I guess there could be syntactic arguments :) 16:00:06 <Luc> subtopic: Formal Semantics <luc>Summary: JamesC explained why formal semantics could be appropriate and he illustrated several ways to go about it. This was followed by a discussion on the purpose of the semantics and what it brings over the OWL formalization. It was agreed this topic will be revisited once a first draft of the OWL ontology is available, trying to identify issues that would deserve a mathematical formalization and that are not covered by the OWL ontology. 16:00:25 <jcheney> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jcheney/pilformalsemantics.pdf 16:01:07 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 16:01:08 <Yogesh> jcheney: slide 2: wy formal semantics is important 16:01:08 <stain> I love the romantic music 16:01:17 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 27 (61%), +1.518.276.aahh (40%), MacTed (65%), jcheney (96%) 16:01:31 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:01:31 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:01:41 <Yogesh> jcheney: smaller core languages for java 16:02:01 <pgroth> Zakim, mute 27 16:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to 27 16:02:06 <Yogesh> ...description logic semantics, 1st order logic 16:02:08 <GK> DL, OWL, FoL, RDF all underpinned by model theory 16:02:19 <pgroth> Zakim, mute +1.518.276.aahh 16:02:19 <Zakim> +1.518.276.aahh should now be muted 16:02:23 <Paolo> Zakim, mute ??27 16:02:24 <Zakim> sorry, Paolo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??27 16:02:25 <satya> @GK: agree 16:02:31 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 16:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo, Curt, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame, +1.518.633.aaff, 16:02:34 <Zakim> ... +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh (muted), dgarijo, ??P9, Sandro, +1.714.454.aaii, +1.860.673.aajj, stain.a, ??P48, ??P35 16:02:40 <Yogesh> ...Not same sematics as "semantic web" but in representing human knowledge 16:02:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Reza, JimMcCusker, StephenCresswell, Christine, jorn, JimM, dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, 16:02:47 <Zakim> ... Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot 16:03:10 <Yogesh> ...Slide 3; not like a prog language. So why bother? 16:03:38 <Yogesh> ...identify which are individual entities 16:03:42 <GK> To some extent, if we have OWL definition we have some formal semantics automatically. Certainly, use of model MUST NOT conflict with OWL or RDF formal semantics. 16:03:49 <Yogesh> ...formal basis for design decisions 16:03:57 <Yogesh> ...common starting point for users. 16:04:11 <Yogesh> ...not confusing like english language 16:04:33 <stain> @GK, but a formal model can better deal with use/generation time, IVPs etc 16:04:46 <Yogesh> ...people can make use of provenance without knowing how your system works 16:04:53 <GK> +1 start with _lightweight_ formal semantics (slide 7) 16:05:17 <Yogesh> ...avoid heavyweight 16:05:42 <Yogesh> ...inspiration from math model for data preservation 16:05:47 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh 16:06:12 <Yogesh> ...Slide 4; 16:06:37 <GK> q+ to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)? 16:06:53 <Yogesh> ...two MS documents in different formats represent same information 16:06:56 <satya> @james: I agree with your points on formal semantics, but I am confused how does what you have in proposal 1, 2, 3 relate to OWL/RDFS semantics 16:06:57 <Reza> IMO, this is excellent. This type of formalism will probably answer some of the concerns I have regarding the model. 16:07:05 <Yogesh> ...Slide 5; 16:07:11 <Reza> The formalism will at least drive at exact definitions. 16:07:28 <Yogesh> ...information content has not changed even if preservation method has changed 16:07:40 <Reza> How do we tie this type of formalism to the Model? 16:07:56 <Yogesh> ...Slide 6; asking informally for agree, disagree, nont want to answer 16:08:24 <Yogesh> ...its in the charter but we need not *have* to do it 16:09:17 <Yogesh> ...Slide 7; develop formalism along with model/schema 16:09:54 <Yogesh> ...Slide 8; proposal 3 is for lightweight first version 16:10:09 <Zakim> -??P35 16:10:21 <Yogesh> ...can end up putting lot of effort that may not eventually make it 16:10:35 <Luc> q? 16:10:38 <Yogesh> ...Happy to talk about it with others 16:10:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:10:55 <Luc> ack gk 16:10:55 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)? 16:11:05 <Yogesh> GK: fan of formal semantics, but not too much. do not want to exclude 16:11:15 <Yogesh> ...as a result of formalism 16:11:39 <Yogesh> ...Is it a new framework? May cause problems for adoption. 16:11:58 <pgroth> q+ to respond to GK 16:12:00 <Yogesh> ...Cant we just use owl ontology that is in framework of web semantics? 16:12:18 <Yogesh> jcheney: not owl expert 16:12:44 <pgroth> q- 16:12:47 <satya> @james: capability of OWL (tractable fragment) is "sameAs" description logic 16:12:48 <Yogesh> ...Did not want to take things too far to make them redundant with existing schemas 16:13:37 <Yogesh> ...describe properties and relationships between artifacts. help with model interpretation. 16:14:05 <GK> I think that sounds like something that OWL described very naturally 16:14:18 <Luc> q? 16:14:26 <Yogesh> Luc: charter has something that said that formalism should capture math properties that cannot be captured in owl 16:14:29 <satya> @Luc: Would those properties be expressed in RIF? 16:14:47 <Luc> ack khal 16:14:51 <Yogesh> GK: we can see if owl can do job or not if we start simple 16:14:53 <Luc> q? 16:15:33 <Luc> q? 16:15:43 <Paolo> q+ 16:15:54 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: why do we need formal model? will be helpful for public, but will also be helpful for model TF members to gain understanding and precise definition 16:16:16 <GK> Khalid: +1 attempting a formal model helps to clarify ideas 16:16:17 <Yogesh> ...dont have lot of time. so light weight formal definition. 16:16:42 <Luc> q? 16:16:47 <Yogesh> ...e.g. IVP Of, Bob, that are still being discussed 16:17:13 <pgroth> q+ 16:17:19 <pgroth> to respond 16:17:21 <Luc> ack paolo 16:17:22 <Yogesh> Paolo: if we choose owl for semantics for data model, what is difference between formalism and @satya's owl efforts? 16:17:33 <Luc> ack pg 16:17:49 <Yogesh> Pgroth: owl ontology trying to represent conceptual model in sematic web language 16:17:58 <Yogesh> ...formalism is math description 16:18:04 <Reza> As an implementer, specially given the approach of the majority of folks is to err on the generic direction, I think the formalism will be very helpful. The formalism will be much more clear than OWL in form of things like boundary conditions for the implementers. 16:18:08 <GK> @Paolo: if OWL can capture the semantics, then there is no (necessary) difference, IMO, 16:18:14 <Yogesh> ...If we choose description logic for math, it will map to owl easily 16:18:15 <satya> q+ 16:18:38 <pgroth> q- 16:18:42 <Yogesh> ...Math gives different way for representing formal model constraints 16:18:52 <Yogesh> Paolo: not fully convinced 16:19:10 <Yogesh> ...owl DL was not for designed for semantics of programming language 16:19:13 <GK> OWL *is* a DL language; mapping DL to OWL is misleading, IMO 16:19:24 <Reza> Please remember that implementers will need to tie Query and Model together with some implementation (implement search algorithms, etc.) and having a formal Model provides boundary conditions (for example, what search algorithms may not be admissible, etc. based on the mathematical formalism) 16:19:41 <Paolo> @GK I know, thanks 16:19:48 <Yogesh> Pgroth: difference between formulas and owl 16:20:15 <Yogesh> satya: @GK is echoing similar concerns 16:20:45 <Yogesh> ...if there are things we cannot model in owl, we can go to owl full and RIF 16:20:56 <satya> @Reza: That is exactly what encoding in OWL will do 16:21:14 <Yogesh> Luc: cannot resolve today. @jcheney, howshould we proceed? 16:21:25 <Yogesh> jcheney: wanted to start discussion. 16:21:42 <Yogesh> ...Know about DL and first order logic, not owl 16:21:44 <khalidbelhajjame> I like prolog :-) 16:21:49 <Paolo> +1 for the P-word (= Prolog) 16:21:50 <satya> @james: yes about RIF 16:22:01 <Yogesh> ...Several views on what formal semantics is. 16:22:17 <Yogesh> ...Need not do things two ways if owl is sufficient 16:22:27 <dgarijo> RIF is compatible with Owl, right? 16:22:37 <Yogesh> ...Can come back to topics in 1-2 weeks when I come back with writeup 16:22:51 <Reza> I guess I'm just unsure that OWL can capture exact boundary conditions, etc. Perhaps we can use the formalism that James wants as a test case to see if the ideas can or cannot be expressed in OWL. 16:22:55 <GK> @jcheyney: if you write something down, there are ppl here who can help with expressing in OWL, if possible 16:23:06 <Luc> q? 16:23:09 <Yogesh> Luc: satya will release first version of owl ontology in 1 week. we can schedule formalism discussion after that is done. 16:23:15 <Luc> ack satya 16:23:17 <pgroth> exactly, that's the point 16:23:31 <Yogesh> Satya: is scheduling telecon with Deborah. @jcheney is welcome to join 16:23:35 <pgroth> we shouldn't be artifically constrainted by owl 16:23:51 <pgroth> agree wiht Reza 16:23:54 <Yogesh> Luc: will work with jcheney to schedule call later 16:23:58 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaff 16:23:59 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:23:59 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:24:00 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:24:00 <Zakim> - +1.860.673.aajj 16:24:01 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aaee 16:24:01 <Zakim> -??P9 16:24:02 <Yogesh> meeting concluded 16:24:03 <Zakim> -Luc 16:24:04 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:24:06 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:24:11 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:24:12 <Zakim> -Curt 16:24:12 <Zakim> - +1.714.454.aaii 16:24:19 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aagg 16:24:21 <Zakim> -??P6 16:24:23 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:24:26 <Zakim> -??P8 16:24:32 <Zakim> -stain 16:24:35 <Zakim> -Yogesh 16:24:56 <Zakim> -Sandro #16:25:02 <Zakim> -Ronald 16:25:07 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000576