Chatlog 2011-07-21

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.

14:51:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:25 <RRSAgent> logging to
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:
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>
15:03:23 <Yogesh> scribe: yogesh
15:03:57 <Luc>
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>
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>
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:
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>
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>
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:
15:32:24 <GK> Announcement
15:32:39 <Yogesh> GK: has put draft at W3C mercurial wiki
15:32:58 <Luc> Pointers to working drafts from WG page:
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>
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:
#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>
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:
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> 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 ?
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>
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> 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