From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:44:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:44:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-prov-irc 14:44:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:44:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:44:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:44:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:44:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:44:23 <trackbot> Date: 04 August 2011 14:44:30 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:44:30 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes 14:44:53 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.04 14:45:02 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:45:18 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:45:58 <Luc> Regrets: Deborah McGuinness 14:52:07 <Luc> Scribe: Christine 14:52:17 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:52:27 <Luc> Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: last week's minutes were approved. 14:52:53 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:52:59 <Zakim> +??P33 14:53:12 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P33 is me 14:53:12 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:53:26 <satya> satya has joined #prov 14:53:28 <Zakim> +??P34 14:53:47 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:53:48 <Zakim> +??P42 14:53:57 <Paolo> zakim, ??P42 is me 14:53:57 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:54:47 <Zakim> -Paolo 14:55:14 <Zakim> +??P42 14:55:19 <Luc> zakim, ??P42 is me 14:55:19 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:55:26 <Luc> Paolo, you must be ??P34 14:55:43 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:56:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P34 14:56:09 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P34', Paolo 14:56:12 <Paolo> zakim, ??P34 is me 14:56:12 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:56:40 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov 14:57:04 <Zakim> +Curt 14:59:42 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 14:59:44 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 14:59:59 <Zakim> +??P20 15:00:01 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:00:02 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 15:00:11 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:00:11 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:00:11 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:00:36 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:01:07 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:01:07 <kai> kai has joined #prov 15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P17 15:01:35 <Zakim> +??P53 15:01:36 <jcheney> zakim, ??P17 is me 15:01:39 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:01:42 <GK1_> GK1_ has joined #prov 15:01:51 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov 15:01:53 <Zakim> +??P57 15:01:55 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P53 is me 15:01:59 <kai> zakim, ??P57 is me. 15:02:15 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:02:18 <Christine> [Discussion of the agenda] 15:02:28 <Zakim> +kai; got it 15:02:32 <JimMyers> JimMyers has joined #prov 15:02:36 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aaaa 15:02:37 <Christine> No additional agenda items 15:02:38 <Zakim> +SamCoppens 15:02:40 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb 15:02:41 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-28 15:02:44 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc 15:02:49 <Reza_BFar> Reza_BFar has joined #prov 15:02:52 <Zakim> + +1.714.454.aadd 15:02:52 <satya> +1 15:02:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:02:54 <Zakim> +??P28 15:02:54 <tlebo> +1 15:02:55 <Curt> +1 15:02:55 <Christine> Item 1 of agenda - to approve the minutes of the last telecon 15:02:56 <Paolo> +1 15:02:56 <SamCoppens> +1 15:03:00 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aaee 15:03:02 <olaf> +1 15:03:05 <dcorsar> +1 15:03:09 <JimMyers> +1 15:03:09 <jcheney> +1 15:03:11 <Edoardo> +1 15:03:27 <kai> +1 15:03:32 <olaf> zakim, aacc is me 15:03:37 <smiles> +1 15:03:46 <Luc> Accepted: last week's teleconference minutes. 15:04:00 <Zakim> +olaf; got it 15:04:04 <MacTed> Zakim, code? 15:04:09 <Christine> Item 2 of agenda - review outstanding items 15:04:30 <Zakim> +??P62 15:04:31 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:04:35 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), MacTed 15:04:35 <satya> zakim, 1.216.368.aaaa is me 15:04:40 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is me 15:04:45 <GK1> zakim, ??P62 is me (I think) 15:04:55 <Zakim> sorry, satya, I do not recognize a party named '1.216.368.aaaa' 15:04:59 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:04:59 <Christine> need to follow up to see if new questionnaire is being produced 15:04:59 <MacTed> Zakim, MacTed is OpenLink_Software 15:05:03 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P62 is me (I think)', GK1 15:05:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:05:06 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:05:08 <Christine> pgroth to follow up to see how this is progressing 15:05:09 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it 15:05:11 <Luc> Topic: Name suggestions <luc>Summary: the poll during the week indicated that PIL and PAST were the key contenders, with 6 and 5 votes respectively. Submit your name suggestions if you don't like these! The plan is to choose a name by mid-september, in time for the FPWD. We should keep in mind that the name should work for a data model, an ontology, and access/query mechanisms. 15:05:11 <satya> zakim, +1.216.368.aaaa is me 15:05:13 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:05:15 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:05:17 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:05:22 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov 15:05:24 <Zakim> +satya; got it 15:05:24 <GK1> zakim, ??P62 is me 15:05:26 <Zakim> +Yogesh 15:05:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Curt, ??P20, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, kai, satya, +1.518.276.aabb, SamCoppens, olaf, +1.714.454.aadd, ??P28, +49.302.093.aaee, ??P62, 15:05:35 <Zakim> ... MacTed (muted), Yogesh 15:05:37 <Christine> Item 3 of agenda - the name for the standard 15:05:55 <dgraijo> dgraijo has joined #prov 15:05:56 <Luc> q? 15:05:59 <Christine> Luc: pgroth circulated a form to express views 15:06:04 <Zakim> +GK1; got it 15:06:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see Yogesh, Reza_BFar, JimMyers, olaf, GK1_, kai, smiles, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Christine, tlebo, GK1, SamCoppens, Edoardo, dcorsar, Vinh, Curt, Paolo, satya, pgroth, 15:06:15 <Zakim> ... Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, edsu, sandro, trackbot 15:06:26 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:06:50 <Christine> pgroth: 16 responses - 2 biggest PIL (6 votes) PAS (5 votes) 1 vote for .. 15:06:58 <Reza_BFar> I didn't vote yet, but +1 for PIL 15:07:11 <Christine> Luc: Is it representative? 15:07:24 <Luc> q? 15:07:29 <Christine> pgroth: Could vote now or take another vote 15:07:44 <Zakim> +??P10 15:07:47 <Paolo> I think the appeal of PAS is that it is actually PAST 15:07:51 <Christine> Luc: Concern about voting now is that a lot of people are on holiday 15:07:53 <Zakim> +??P12 15:08:04 <Luc> q? 15:08:06 <Christine> Luc: Graham also suggested another 2 or 3 names which could be considered 15:08:08 <satya> I also suggesed one - added to wiki 15:08:09 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aaff 15:08:11 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P12 is me 15:08:11 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:08:27 <GK1> +1 to have a name by FPWD, not not urgent until then 15:08:31 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aagg 15:08:32 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov 15:08:33 <Christine> pgroth: We need a name before going to public draft. Can leave poll open and close later. 15:08:47 <GK1> Maybe re-run the vote ...? 15:08:48 <Luc> q? 15:08:50 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:08:53 <GK1> (offline) 15:08:53 <Christine> Luc: Agree. Put on agenda in September for decision by mid-September. 15:09:12 <Vinh> +1.915.603.aaff is me 15:09:14 <Christine> pgroth: agree and will add other proposals and encourage people to vote 15:09:38 <Luc> q? 15:09:41 <Paolo> q+ 15:09:48 <Luc> ack pao 15:10:05 <Christine> Paolo: PIL has the term "language" in it - be aware 15:10:10 <satya> right 15:10:12 <satya> q+ 15:10:21 <Luc> ack satya 15:10:32 <Christine> Satya: agree with Paolo re concern on "language" 15:10:40 <Christine> pgroth: add proposals to the wiki page 15:11:13 <Luc> q? 15:11:19 <Luc> Topic: Provenance Access Document <luc>Summary: Graham told us that a new version of the document was being released. In terms of timetable, editors will be away 6-20 September. The aim is to release a "pre-final" version by Sep 6, to be reviewed in their absence, with final version released by end of September. 15:11:21 <Christine> Luc: "language" is problematic - need to explain names on wiki page 15:11:43 <Luc> q? 15:11:49 <GK1> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/a055a7987aa7/paq/provenance-access.html 15:12:48 <Luc> q? 15:13:27 <Christine> Graham: since last week, a lot of comments came in. I have been through Olaf's editorial comments and updated text accordingly. One issue defered - is it provenance information or another term. Also working on mercurial to include a proposal for simple HTTP interface for provenance discovery. 15:14:09 <Christine> Graham: Will need a little more work but thrust is visible from the proposal. 15:14:14 <Luc> q? 15:15:05 <Christine> Lu and Graham: [discussion of timing and availability] 15:15:21 <Luc> q? 15:15:26 <Christine> Luc: first working draft by end of Sept? 15:16:38 <Christine> Luc: then final revision? 15:16:40 <khalidbelhajjame> end of August 15:16:43 <khalidbelhajjame> ? 15:17:09 <Luc> q? 15:17:48 <Luc> q? 15:17:54 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:18:04 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.302.093.aaee (23%), GK1 (20%) 15:18:33 <Luc> Topic: Provenance Ontology <Luc>Summary: Satya reported back on the design of the provenance ontology. It was noted that progress on the ontology is dependent on progress on the model. Editors will be available during the summer period. 15:18:39 <MacTed> (whoever's breathing heavy in their headset... please note that you're causing other people's speech to drop out) 15:19:24 <Christine> Satya: [reporting on progress] - meeting on Monday with volunteers - are working on conceptual model and ontology 15:19:43 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 15:19:57 <satya> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html 15:20:02 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 15:20:23 <Christine> Satya: comment on whether agree or not with document 15:20:54 <Luc> q? 15:21:11 <Christine> Satya: not clear - since defining with OWL ...what other entailments? .. are we going to add other provenance semantics to our work? 15:21:48 <Christine> Luc: discuss later today. re transitive which you raised - why is not explained in OWL 15:22:05 <Luc> q? 15:22:18 <Christine> Satya: no comments received on available documents 15:22:40 <khalidbelhajjame> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 15:22:41 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 15:22:47 <Paolo> well, the OWL file it opens well in my protege :-) 15:22:48 <dgarijo> yes, it is the link I posted before 15:22:49 <GK1> (I probably won't attempt to review the formal model until the main conceptual model document settles.) 15:23:08 <Luc> q? 15:23:09 <dgarijo> @Paolo: Satya prepared it in Protege :) 15:23:15 <Paolo> q+ 15:23:21 <Luc> ack paolo 15:23:53 <Christine> Paolo: Clear distinction of OWL as encoding model and as a language for defining the semantics 15:24:31 <tlebo> +1 paolo's distinction on conceptual model's semantics vs. the semantics encoded in OWL. 15:24:33 <GK1> q+ to say that using OWL for structural definition could be confusing 15:24:45 <GK1> q- ... what Paolo is saying :) 15:24:46 <Christine> Satya: quick answer - by defn - OWL has own semantics - can't avoid that 15:24:50 <GK1> q- 15:25:08 <GK1> s./Paolo/Satya/ (sorry) 15:25:35 <Luc> q? 15:25:46 <Zakim> +??P4 15:25:55 <Christine> Satya: making sure conceptual model is captured in ontology 15:26:38 <Luc> q? 15:26:56 <Christine> Luc and Satya: discuss further outside call 15:27:19 <Christine> Luc: [discussing availability of editors] 15:27:31 <Luc> q? 15:27:45 <Luc> Topic: Provenance Model Document <luc>Summary: Paolo reported on the provenance model document. A revised version will be released by Monday, to be reviewed during editor's absence (most of the remaining part of August). Editors are attempting to synthesize solutions following email discussions about issues raised, and close them, pending review. We also confirmed that, following a vote during the week, the term BOB is replaced by Entity, in this new version of the document. The idea of a primer was discussed: while such a document is highly desirable, it was felt that the model is not stable enough to write a primer. It was suggested that developing the Data Journalism example in full, would be a step forward. 15:27:49 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html 15:28:01 <Christine> Paolo: link to latest version 15:28:30 <Christine> Paolo: more discussion on the list and some offlist - Luc did a good job of mapping issues to the document 15:29:24 <Christine> Paolo: a number of open issues - 2 main changes to document - issues now interleved in document - open/pending issues marked in document 15:30:29 <Christine> Paolo: with Luc - sections up to 5.3 have been reconsidered in view of the issues - can see the result 15:31:16 <Christine> Luc: aim to have a new version by Monday night 15:31:24 <Luc> q? 15:31:33 <dcorsar_> dcorsar_ has joined #prov 15:32:06 <Luc> q? 15:32:10 <pgroth> +q 15:32:20 <smiles> q+ 15:32:27 <Christine> Luc: we will continue working on doc in September 15:32:56 <Christine> pgroth: Are we still discussing core definitions? How settled are the core concepts? 15:33:49 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 15:34:20 <GK1> I acknowledge that I need to come back with something approaching an evaluatable proposal. 15:34:27 <Christine> Luc: Difficult to answer. Issues have been raised regarding the core of the model. 15:34:46 <pgroth> q+ to ask about "other concepts" 15:34:54 <satya> q+ 15:34:56 <Luc> ack pg 15:34:56 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about "other concepts" 15:35:11 <pgroth> q+ to ask about "other concepts" 15:35:13 <GK1> I came round to agree with transitivity of derivation. 15:35:33 <Christine> Luc: For example. Transitivity is a difficult issue. 15:35:59 <GK1> My main concern is the nature of "Entities". 15:36:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:36:31 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aaee 15:36:54 <Paolo> q+ 15:36:55 <Christine> SimonM: Are we intended to release anything in September? How might use the model? or the access document? 15:37:05 <Luc> q? 15:37:10 <Christine> Luc: Good question - are they stable enough to write a primer? 15:37:29 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aahh 15:37:38 <Christine> Luc: Did not commit to release primer by then 15:37:50 <Luc> ack smi 15:37:58 <Paolo> I really believe the primer[model] should go hand in hand with the model conceptualization 15:38:13 <GK1> q+ to note that part of my problem in responding to the model has been that the language used seems to over-specialized in places. 15:38:47 <Christine> pgroth: Don't think we can expect to have a draft primer for this - not enough bandwidth and not close enough to being finished - more to reach out to technical people 15:38:49 <tlebo> @paolo "hand in hand" - interleaved within same document? 15:38:57 <Luc> q? 15:39:05 <Luc> ack satya 15:39:06 <Christine> Luc: Could we express the model with alternate ways of encoding? not a primer in itself 15:39:14 <Paolo> @tlebo -- no, rather meant just what Luc just said 15:39:38 <Christine> Satya: Daniel mentioned - have concepts of location and time in ontology but no properties linking these concepts to entity 15:39:56 <Paolo> challenge the model with new examples where we are able to describe how the model is used in plain language 15:40:01 <dgarijo> it's true, I forgot to bring'em on here >.< 15:40:16 <Luc> ack pg 15:40:16 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about "other concepts" 15:40:51 <Christine> pgroth: Brought up an issue a month ago about particular concepts I thought were vital to have that may be able to expressed within current concepts of the model. Would like your view on that. 15:41:04 <Christine> pgroth: Things like attribution 15:41:12 <Zakim> -??P4 15:41:46 <Paolo> Q? 15:41:50 <Zakim> +??P4 15:41:53 <Christine> Luc: It is a good idea. The issue is raised in the document. A new section has been added. Hope to have something in it by Monday. 15:41:59 <jorn> zakim, ??p4 is me 15:41:59 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:42:13 <Zakim> - +1.714.454.aadd 15:42:15 <Luc> ack kh 15:42:53 <Christine> Khalid: Would it help to priortise issues that are fixed to coverge more quickly on core issues such as transitivity. 15:43:23 <Christine> Luc: Paolo and I have tried to prioritise. Some natural selection on issues via email traffic. 15:43:42 <Luc> q? 15:43:46 <Luc> ack pao 15:43:49 <Christine> Luc: We hope to have proposals by Monday. 15:44:50 <satya> +1 for Paolo's point - I actually see the conceptual model as a primer 15:44:50 <Christine> Paolo: Clarifying earlier comment. Need more examples [sound dropped out] ... we need some easy explanation of what we are trying to get at .. does not need to be released .. internal 15:44:55 <satya> q+ 15:46:25 <Christine> Graham: Comment cuts across primer and concept document - one problem I had when I was reviewing this - a lot of the language was over specialised even for a technical audience - implicit or tacit knowledge bound up in what was explained. 15:46:49 <Paolo> @GK +1 15:46:51 <Luc> ack gk 15:46:52 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that part of my problem in responding to the model has been that the language used seems to over-specialized in places. 15:46:53 <Christine> Graham: Perhaps less specialised language document - to explain 15:47:07 <Luc> ack saty 15:47:18 <Paulo> q+ 15:47:20 <Christine> Satya: primer in the sense that Luc and Simon - aggregation on model and access? 15:47:31 <Zakim> -Curt 15:47:39 <Luc> q? 15:47:48 <GK1> +1 15:47:49 <Christine> Satya: primer should only be done after closure on the models - otherwise premature 15:48:33 <Christine> Paulo: Like the idea of challenging the model - doing this through issue 26 15:48:57 <Christine> Paulo: Looking for response to my issue by email 15:48:58 <satya> Paolo/Paulo 15:49:17 <Christine> [Scribe apologising for name] 15:49:50 <Luc> q? 15:49:53 <Luc> ack pau 15:50:16 <Zakim> +Curt 15:50:17 <Christine> Luc: vote during the week - entity was definitely leading 15:50:30 <Luc> q? 15:50:37 <Christine> Luc: using "entity" for the document 15:51:09 <Luc> Topic: Formal semantics <luc>Summary: We continued our discussion on the scope of a formal semantics, trying to identify what differentiates it from the OWL formalization. James drafted a wiki page, suggesting issues that the formal semantics could tackle, and which cannot be addressed by the OWL formalization. Group members are invited to contribute their views on this page. 15:50:59 <Christine> Luc: formal semantics - would like to open the debate again and understand the scope of the semantics 15:52:04 <Christine> JamesC: As Satya mentioned, we discussed on Monday. Things such as transitivity. 15:52:18 <Luc> q? 15:52:37 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemantics 15:52:40 <Christine> JamesC: end result - some comments will be added to OWL ontology doc 15:52:49 <satya> @James, can you please repeat the example - missed the issue sorry 15:53:32 <Christine> JamesC: In the meantime look at the wiki (see link) 15:54:28 <Christine> JamesC: various constraints mentioned in the document - simple one - [stating an order on data values related to class in OWL] - not sure if can be expressed 15:55:07 <Christine> Satya: now looking at "source assertion" - exactly what I mean about entailments [?] 15:55:59 <Christine> @Satya pls write your example for the minutes 15:56:38 <Luc> q? 15:57:17 <Zakim> -jorn 15:57:35 <Paulo> if look into the owl specification itself, we will see that they talk about entailment but also about consistency, equivalence, etc 15:57:52 <Luc> q? 15:58:03 <pgroth> +q 15:58:18 <Christine> Luc: comments/suggestions for scoping semantics? 15:58:31 <Zakim> +??P4 15:58:34 <satya> @James OWL2 direct semantics: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/ was the document I was refering to 15:58:53 <Christine> Paul; conceptual model should do what it needs to do for standardising services - should not constrain with what we can do in OWL 15:58:57 <Luc> q? 15:59:00 <Luc> ack pg 15:59:08 <GK1> @paul +1 15:59:09 <Christine> PauL; OWL seems to be working 15:59:13 <satya> @Christine, sorry the example? 16:00:07 <dgarijo> what about the rules? (some of them can be produced while we do the ontology, in RIFF, for instance) 16:00:10 <Christine> @satya - when you were talking about entailment - [perhaps someone else can help] 16:00:47 <GK1> q+ to say following paul to identify what inferences are desired to standardize, then figure out what formal semantics can achieve that 16:01:03 <satya> @James, can we add a link to your page from the formal model wiki page created by TimL? 16:01:33 <dgarijo> @satya I think that will be a good idea. 16:01:46 <Luc> q? 16:02:52 <Luc> ack GK 16:02:52 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say following paul to identify what inferences are desired to standardize, then figure out what formal semantics can achieve that 16:03:02 <Christine> .... Luc: agree with you - trying to gather requirements for formal semantics makes sense 16:03:13 <tlebo> I already added a reference to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemantics from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Initial_comments.2Fsuggestions_about_the_ontology and http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts 16:03:28 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:03:36 <dgarijo> @tlebo nice! 16:03:55 <satya> @GK, agree with this approach 16:04:09 <Luc> q? 16:04:10 <Christine> Graham: if can identify inferences that are desired and then later as the other aspects of the formal semantic settle can see if are covered or not. Thinking of the discussion on transitivity and derviation. 16:04:31 <satya> q+ 16:04:43 <Luc> ack saty 16:04:51 <Christine> Satya: what was the resolution? 16:05:10 <Christine> Luc: my view is that we should keep it separate 16:05:30 <pgroth> we make the decision later 16:05:50 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aaff 16:06:18 <Luc> q? 16:06:22 <GK1> I think I'm less interested in completeness; obviously want soundness :) 16:06:38 <jcheney> q+ 16:07:17 <GK1> @satya: auto verification - surely that's only for constraints expressible in OWL? 16:07:36 <Luc> ack jch 16:07:37 <khalidbelhajjame> do we need to make the decision now as to whether to have a separate formal (in the mathematical sense) semantics or not? 16:07:44 <satya> @GK yes agree 16:08:03 <khalidbelhajjame> we can postopone that to later, when we have the OWL schema 16:08:42 <GK1> @jch +1 16:08:57 <Luc> q? 16:09:08 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aahh 16:09:18 <satya> @James, agree that is why we are facing difficulty in encoding the conceptual model in OWL 16:09:37 <satya> since many of the concepts are still not well/stably defined 16:09:46 <GK1> Makes sense, but may be a tough call :) 16:09:51 <Zakim> -satya 16:09:52 <Zakim> -olaf 16:09:53 <Zakim> -Yogesh 16:09:53 <Zakim> -??P4 16:09:53 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aabb 16:09:54 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:09:54 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:09:54 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov 16:09:57 <Zakim> -Curt 16:09:58 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:10:00 <Zakim> -GK1 16:10:02 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:10:04 <Zakim> -??P28 16:10:04 <jorn> jorn has left #prov 16:10:06 <Zakim> -??P20 16:10:08 <Zakim> -kai 16:10:10 <Zakim> -Luc 16:10:12 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:10:15 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:10:16 <Zakim> - +1.937.343.aagg 16:10:35 <satya> sorry Christine, I don't remember the example, we can leave it out of the mins? 16:11:02 <Zakim> -??P10 16:11:04 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 16:11:06 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Curt, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, kai, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aabb, +1.518.276.aacc, +1.714.454.aadd, +49.302.093.aaee, olaf, MacTed, satya, 16:11:09 <Zakim> ... Yogesh, GK1, +1.915.603.aaff, dgarijo, +1.937.343.aagg, +49.302.093.aahh, jorn 16:19:31 <GK1> GK1 has left #prov # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000388