Chatlog 2011-08-25

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.

14:44:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:44:19 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:44:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:44:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:44:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:44:24 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:44:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:24 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:24 <trackbot> Date: 25 August 2011
14:44:27 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:44:40 <Luc> agenda:
14:44:50 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:58 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:14 <Zakim> +??P48
14:52:26 <pgroth> zakim, ??P48 is me
14:52:26 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:54 <Zakim> +Luc
14:56:24 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:56:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc
14:56:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
14:57:03 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:57:18 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
14:57:25 <edoardo> edoardo has joined #prov
14:57:42 <dcorsar> dcorsar has left #prov
14:57:53 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov
14:59:08 <Zakim> +Vinh
14:59:48 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov
15:00:14 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:00:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh
15:00:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:00:27 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:00:36 <Zakim> +??P57
15:00:40 <yogesh> yogesh has joined #prov
15:00:52 <Zakim> +Curt
15:01:35 <pgroth> scribe?
15:01:56 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:02:17 <pgroth> Zakim, who is one the phone?
15:02:32 <Luc> scribe: pgroth
15:02:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:02:46 <pgroth> zakim, who is here?
15:02:54 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
#15:03:00 <pgroth> Topic: Agenda
15:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: pgroth
15:03:11 <Zakim> +satya
15:03:16 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya
15:04:01 <Luc> TOPIC: Admin
<luc>Summary: Last week's minutes were approved and actions closed. The co-chairs are planning to identify a suitable time and location for F2F2, early in the new year.  Participants are invited to suggest names for the standard, in view of resolution in September.
15:03:17 <pgroth> luc overviewing the agenda
15:03:28 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:03:30 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:03:37 <Luc> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:03:42 <satya> +1
15:03:51 <Zakim> +??P64
15:03:52 <edoardo> +1
15:03:52 <Curt> +1
15:03:53 <Helena> +1
15:03:58 <dcorsar> +1
15:04:04 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:04:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:04:15 <smiles> +1
15:04:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, yogesh, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:04:44 <Luc>  ACCEPTED: the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:05:01 <pgroth> reviewing the action items
15:05:08 <Zakim> +??P61
15:05:09 <pgroth> luc still has an open action
15:05:22 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P61 is me
15:05:23 <Zakim> +??P66
15:05:29 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
15:05:30 <pgroth> luc: discussing a potential f2f
15:05:45 <pgroth> luc: initial discussions about f2f at iswc
15:05:47 <Zakim> +??P11
15:05:53 <Zakim> -??P61
15:05:59 <Luc> q?
15:06:10 <pgroth> luc: but probably not good because of current work on various drafts
15:06:11 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:06:21 <pgroth> luc: chairs will propose a time in the new year 2012
15:06:27 <Zakim> +??P6
15:06:38 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:06:38 <jorn> zakim, ??p6 is me
15:06:38 <pgroth> luc: discussing the name of the standard
15:06:39 <Zakim> I already had ??P61 as ??P61, khalidbelhajjame
15:06:41 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:06:41 <MacTed> zakim, mute me
15:06:48 <pgroth> luc: please update the suggestions
15:06:56 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:07:03 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:07:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya, ??P64, ??P66, +44.789.470.aaaa, ??P11, ??P6, OpenLink_Software, Yogesh, Yolanda
15:07:05 <Luc> q?
15:07:09 <pgroth> luc: agenda item next week on the name of the standard
15:07:24 <Zakim> +??P28
15:07:27 <Zakim> I already had ??P6 as ??P6, jorn
15:07:28 <pgroth> luc: please volunteer for scribing:
15:07:29 <Luc> Topic: Provenance Implementation and Test Cases  
<Luc>Summary: No further feedback was received. The questionnaire is now going to be rolled out.
15:07:33 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:07:37 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:07:49 <pgroth> luc: helena giving update on the questionnaire 
15:07:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see dcorsar, StephenCresswell, smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:08:02 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:08:04 <pgroth> luc: are you ready to role out the questionnaire
15:08:07 <pgroth> helena: yes
15:08:18 <Zakim> +??P31
15:08:25 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aabb
15:08:30 <pgroth> luc: including already populating the questionnaire?
15:08:46 <pgroth> helena: happy with the current questionanaire
15:08:47 <Luc> Topic: Named graphs requirements
<Luc>Summary: The RDF-WG has approached the co-chairs to set up a joint teleconference, in which PROV-WG requirements for RDF Named Graphs are being discussed. Satya is setting up a page on the wiki. Members are invited to express their views on what requirements are.
15:08:51 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:09:02 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:09:33 <pgroth> luc: paul and I were contacted by the co-chair of the w3c rdf working group
15:09:41 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aaaa
15:09:50 <pgroth> luc: ref wg would like to know what our requirements are in terms of named graphs
15:09:55 <pgroth> luc: setting up a telecon
15:09:57 <pgroth> �
15:10:18 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov
15:10:33 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
15:10:34 <pgroth> luc: going over points from guus (in the agenda)
15:10:44 <Luc>
15:10:53 <Luc>
15:10:54 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:11:03 <Zakim> +??P14
15:11:06 <pgroth> luc: includes a link to the current thinking and use cases with respect to named graphs
15:11:10 <jcheney> zakim, ??p14 is me
15:11:10 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:11:24 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aadd
15:11:39 <pgroth> luc: rdf-wg would really like to have specific requirements that the prov-wg has on named graphs
15:12:01 <pgroth> luc: this is a heads-up, who would be interested in getting involved in the discussion
15:12:26 <pgroth> luc: in particular people involved in representing the model in rdf
15:12:32 <Luc> q?
15:12:33 <satya> q+
15:12:39 <Luc> ack satya
15:13:05 <Paulo> zakim,  aadd is me
15:13:05 <Zakim> +Paulo; got it
15:13:20 <pgroth> satya: are they planning to extended existing work on rdf named graphs
15:13:25 <Luc> q?
15:14:21 <pgroth> satya: in terms of representing provenance in rdf. there are other approaches in terms of contextualization, is named graphs the only approach
15:14:27 <smiles> q+
15:14:34 <Paulo> q+
15:14:40 <pgroth> luc: rdf wg is chartered to do named graphs
15:15:15 <pgroth> satya: is it overall for rdf group, or just for named groups
15:15:23 <pgroth> luc: were approached only for named graphs
15:15:25 <pgroth> q+
15:15:26 <Luc> q?
15:15:29 <Luc> ack smil
15:15:29 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:15:47 <pgroth> smiles: suggest some requirements
15:16:02 <pgroth> smiles: give the provenance of rdf based data
15:16:15 <Zakim> +??P16
15:16:18 <pgroth> smiles: need to be able to say that two things have the same provenance
15:16:41 <Luc> q?
15:16:41 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P16 is me
15:16:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:16:46 <Luc> ack pau
15:17:25 <Luc> paulo, isn't there an outline of specification in
15:17:26 <pgroth> paulo: in terms of formal specification, they are moving targets, even if they have one, we need more than one for the provenance solution
15:17:50 <pgroth> paulo: the fact that we want to work with named graphs are just one of the aspects of formalizing provenance
15:18:03 <khalidbelhajjame> One of the concepts we may need RDF graph for is Provenance Container. We have not really discussed this concept in details yet, though.
15:18:24 <Luc> q?
15:18:27 <Paulo> q+
15:18:28 <Luc> ack pgr
15:19:08 <Luc> ack pau
15:19:09 <satya> pgroth: RDF WG is looking for requirements of named graphs - to help them identify their objectives
15:19:11 <Luc> q?
15:19:20 <pgroth> pgroth: shaping where the rdf-wg is going on named graphs
15:19:50 <pgroth> paulo: assumption is that the mapping to owl, and rdf is enough in terms of formalization
15:20:11 <Luc> q?
15:20:16 <pgroth> paulo: not enough for the formalization
15:20:52 <khalidbelhajjame> Paulo, we are investigating in the formal model task force on whether OWL is sifficient, or whether we need another language that we need to specify the semantics
15:21:05 <pgroth> luc: simon identified two requirements for named graphs, there's a third requirement coming from the provenance container (have asserter, maybe having signature)
15:21:18 <pgroth> luc: a possibility for provenance containers is to use named graphs
15:21:20 <Luc> q?
15:21:35 <pgroth> luc: potentially another requirement for the rdf wg
15:21:47 <pgroth> luc: start creating a wiki page for these requirements
15:21:50 <Zakim> -??P28
15:22:00 <satya> I will be happy to create the page
15:22:02 <Luc> q?
15:22:11 <Zakim> +??P15
15:22:16 <jorn> zakim, ??p15 is me
15:22:16 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:22:20 <smiles> yes, that's fine
15:22:22 <pgroth> luc: satya will create the page
15:22:25 <Luc> q?
15:22:32 <pgroth> luc: simon will write up his requirements on the page
15:22:39 <Luc> TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions  
<Luc>Summary: Four proposals were drafted in the agenda. The first three were adopted. We did not reach consensus on directionality.  Furthermore, we debated the use of tense without formulating a resolution. Watch this space!
15:23:24 <pgroth> luc: i had an action to poll the group on naming conventions
15:23:49 <pgroth> luc: seems to have consensus around naming conventions (see agenda)
15:23:55 <pgroth> luc: wants feed back
15:24:21 <pgroth> luc: go through these conventions one by one
15:24:39 <pgroth> luc: process, see whether there's objection or comments
15:24:40 <Luc> To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:14 <dgarijo> +1 (I think the ontology os already using this convention)
15:25:15 <Luc> q?
15:25:30 <Luc> PROPOSED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:36 <satya> +1
15:25:37 <smiles> +1
15:25:37 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:25:38 <dcorsar> +1
15:25:39 <jcheney> +1
15:25:40 <jorn> +1
15:25:40 <edoardo> +1
15:25:41 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:25:42 <MacTed> +1 
15:25:42 <dgarijo> +1
15:25:43 <Curt> +1
15:25:45 <Helena> +1
15:26:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:26:49 <pgroth> luc: moving on whether we want To express nodes in noun form
15:27:08 <smiles> q+
15:27:12 <pgroth> luc: we express edges in verbal form
15:27:15 <Luc> ack smi
15:27:26 <Zakim> -Paulo
15:27:50 <pgroth> smiles: a process execution might be best described by a verb (i.e. publish), the node in a particular graph might be a verb
15:27:54 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:28:08 <Luc> q?
15:28:13 <pgroth> luc: talking about the concepts in the model or classes defined in the ontology
15:28:14 <MacTed> hasPublisher ?
15:28:32 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:28:32 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:28:46 <Luc> q?
15:29:04 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:29:04 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:29:05 <pgroth> MacTed: depending on what the process execution may be, you can noun things
15:29:18 <Luc> PROPOSED: To express nodes in noun form
15:29:38 <satya> +1
15:29:38 <Curt> +1
15:29:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:29:40 <MacTed> +1
15:29:41 <smiles> +1
15:29:41 <edoardo> +1
15:29:41 <jcheney> +1
15:29:42 <dcorsar> +1
15:29:43 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:29:43 <Helena> +!
15:29:44 <jorn> +1
15:29:47 <dgarijo> +1
15:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To express nodes in noun form
15:30:19 <Luc> PROPOSED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:21 <satya> +1
15:30:22 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:30:23 <edoardo> +1
15:30:27 <jorn> +1
15:30:27 <dcorsar> +1
15:30:28 <Curt> +1
15:30:28 <MacTed> +1
15:30:30 <Zakim> -Yolanda
15:30:32 <smiles> +1
15:30:35 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:30:35 <dgarijo> +1
15:30:37 <jcheney> +1
15:30:44 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:53 <dgarijo> Luc, is Ralph here? He was the one that rose all the issues
15:31:12 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:31:13 <dgarijo> ok
15:31:28 <pgroth> luc: ralph is not around but there's nothing we can do
15:32:00 <pgroth> luc: introducing the edge directionality
15:32:16 <Luc> q?
15:32:24 <pgroth> luc: this directionality may be best expressed by pointing towards the past
15:32:30 <pgroth> luc: asks for feedback
15:32:34 <dgarijo> +q
15:32:43 <pgroth> luc: asks satya specifically, are you happy?
15:33:16 <pgroth> luc: satya are you happy with your edges point towards the past
15:33:23 <pgroth> satya: what do you mean?
15:33:38 <khalidbelhajjame> entity <- uses--process execution
15:34:05 <jorn> example\: e2 is derived from e1, then e2 is the most recent entity and e1 is older, so edge points to past
15:34:06 <pgroth> luc: giving examples of the possibilities
15:34:26 <MacTed> process takesInput foo
15:34:26 <MacTed> process hasOutput bar
15:35:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:35:05 <MacTed> q+
15:35:05 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:35:35 <pgroth> luc: not discussing ordering of events
15:35:58 <pgroth> luc: as designers of the model we have the choice of expressing the edges in different ways
15:36:03 <Zakim> +Paulo
15:36:05 <pgroth> luc: proposing to adopt a convention
15:36:07 <Luc> q?
15:36:30 <pgroth> satya: we had the discussion in the formal model task group
15:37:00 <pgroth> satya: from an ontology model perspective it doesn't matter, just a matter of style
15:37:38 <Zakim> -jorn
15:37:49 <Zakim> +??P15
15:37:54 <pgroth> dgarijo: happy with everything in the past
15:38:05 <Luc> ack dgar
15:38:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:38:54 <pgroth> luc: not all edges should point to the past
15:39:07 <pgroth> luc: only for edges that have an event ordering
15:39:17 <Luc> q?
15:39:24 <pgroth> luc: currently, definition of hasParticipant does not imply an event ordering
15:39:42 <Luc> ack mac
15:39:45 <StephenCresswell> The ontology can define the edges in both direction (pairs of mutually inverse properties), and let people use which they find natural in their application.
15:39:59 <pgroth> MacTed: is there a link to the event ordering definition
15:40:00 <satya>
15:40:25 <Luc>
15:40:26 <pgroth> MacTed: i'm not getting a firm understanding of what is meant by the proposal
15:41:01 <pgroth> Luc: explaining an example 
15:41:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Mac, he possibilities we are discussing are: entity <--uses---process execution and entity ---is used by --> process execution. In the first, the edges point to the past.
15:42:24 <pgroth> MacTed: there are two time frames, saying both of those is useful
15:42:38 <jorn> Luc's example: process generates output vs. output is generated by process
15:42:42 <pgroth> luc: only one of them is defined in the model
15:42:44 <smiles> I think the case for future-to-past directionality (as proposed) is clearest where provenance is distributed. If I have created a new entity, for example, then what I can link it to is other entities which already exist, but not to things which don't yet exist. So the new entity is the *subject* of what I'm asserting, the older entity is the *object*.
15:42:59 <pgroth> Luc: useful to have a convention
15:43:19 <pgroth> MacTed: this is a question for reasoning edges to deal with their inverse
15:44:10 <pgroth> MacTed: inverse properties are extremely important for modeling  
15:44:15 <Luc> q?
15:44:46 <pgroth> Satya: this can be done in the ontology
15:45:24 <pgroth> Luc: Ted would like to see the inverse properties expressed in the model as well
15:45:34 <Luc> q?
15:45:35 <pgroth> Luc: do we have consensus
15:45:38 <pgroth> q+
15:45:45 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:46:00 <MacTed> ISSUE: express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology
15:46:00 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-83 - Express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology ; please complete additional details at .
15:46:16 <Luc> q?
15:46:21 <Luc> ack khal
15:46:39 <Luc> ack pg
15:46:51 <satya> As part of the formal model discussion, we are enumerating the list of possible properties - I invite Ted to add his proposal to the ontology wiki:
15:46:54 <Luc> why not define them as "short-cut/extensions"
15:48:10 <pgroth> luc: is it a set of properties defined in the model
15:48:35 <Luc> q?
15:48:44 <Zakim> -??P57
15:49:04 <Zakim> - +1.509.375.aabb
15:50:02 <Luc> proposed: make a set of edges consistent with respect to directionality
15:50:16 <jorn> q+ to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:50:38 <Luc> q?
15:50:51 <Luc> ack jorn
15:50:51 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:51:19 <Luc> q?
15:51:20 <pgroth> jorn: maybe problematic because you would always have to turn on reasoning
15:51:38 <pgroth> MacTed: definitely not a should 
15:52:53 <pgroth> luc: it's important to right simple queries that let's us go into the past
15:53:02 <pgroth> MacTed: you're looking at the wrong place
15:53:10 <pgroth> MacTed: simple queries are not ruled out
15:53:17 <Zakim> -??P15
15:53:29 <Zakim> +??P15
15:53:29 <pgroth> MacTed: inverse properties are going to exisit
15:53:36 <jorn> zakim, ??p15 is me
15:53:36 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:54:06 <pgroth> Luc: what are the relations pointing to the future and to the past?
15:54:15 <pgroth> MacTed: you want both
15:55:12 <pgroth> Luc: moving on from these issue because there is no consensus
15:55:43 <pgroth> Luc: no stylistic constraints in how we write edge directions
15:55:50 <pgroth> Luc: dropped issue
15:56:16 <pgroth> Luc: moving on to the debate around past tense verses future tense
15:56:21 <Luc> q?
15:56:23 <pgroth> Luc: should be consistent
15:56:33 <Luc> q?
15:56:34 <pgroth> MacTed: missing temporality
15:56:40 <jcheney> q+
15:56:49 <smiles> q+
15:57:00 <dgarijo> +1 for past tense. Provenance is for describing things that have already happened
15:57:00 <pgroth> MacTed: all kinds of temporality that might be of interest
15:57:13 <jcheney> q-
15:57:21 <Luc> q?
15:57:22 <pgroth> Luc: we are only talking about things in the past
15:57:28 <Luc> ack smiles
15:57:29 <Luc> q?
15:57:39 <satya> q+
15:57:44 <pgroth> smiles: don't want future tense
15:58:00 <pgroth> s/simon/smiles
15:58:08 <Luc> ack sat
15:58:25 <Luc> q?
15:58:56 <pgroth> satya: bringing of the issue of the current
15:59:28 <pgroth> satya: is it past perfect or continuous
15:59:37 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:59:49 <jorn> there's one such process: the extraction of DBpedia from wikipedia takes a long time
15:59:52 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
16:00:00 <Luc> q?
16:00:01 <pgroth> luc: are you talking bout the nodes or the edges (the process execution are the present) edges represent past actions
16:01:19 <Luc> q?
16:01:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Sorry, will need to leave, I have another telecon
16:01:25 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aacc
16:01:26 <pgroth> satya: using past perfect might not be enough because of continuous things 
16:01:34 <Zakim> -??P6
16:01:56 <pgroth> q+
16:01:57 <smiles> @satya I think there are edge cases where assertions may be about things ongoing, but I argue consistent past tense just makes things simple and clear for general intended use
16:02:06 <satya> +1 for past tense (not sure about past perfect or continous)
16:02:47 <dgarijo> @satya: you are not sure about isGeneratedBy vs wasGeneratedBy, right?
16:03:01 <Curt> q+
16:03:07 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:03:21 <Luc> ack curt
16:03:27 <satya> @Daniel:  no I vote for "was"
16:03:57 <Luc> q?
16:04:04 <pgroth> q+
16:04:11 <Luc> ack pgro
16:04:14 <MacTed> verbal expression does not require "to be"
16:04:25 <MacTed> (is, was, will be, has been)
16:04:32 <satya> q+
16:04:40 <Luc> ack satya
16:04:51 <jorn> isn't this about was generating vs. generated
16:05:04 <MacTed> Produces, isProducedBy
16:05:18 <jorn>
16:05:24 <MacTed> participation is linguistic
16:05:52 <Luc> e.g., uses, isControlledBy, isComplementOf 
16:05:53 <jorn> resp.
16:06:13 <pgroth> but you put uses
16:06:18 <MacTed> isUsedBy ?
16:06:24 <pgroth> luc: do we need is, was in the names
16:06:38 <Luc> TOPIC: Provenance Ontology  
<luc>Summary: Satya reported on progress on the ontology. Focus is on working on the formal model document, the owl file will be updated later. The file example is now encoded in rdf and available in the document. 
16:06:46 <pgroth> luc: update the status
16:06:52 <satya>
16:07:03 <pgroth> luc: is there anything in the model that is blocking progression?
16:07:08 <pgroth> satya: giving an update
16:07:18 <pgroth> satya: invites people to go through the encoding
16:08:06 <pgroth> satya: what's holding up is that we don't understand the definitions
16:08:25 <pgroth> satya: the scope is often not clear from the model
16:08:31 <Zakim> -Paulo
16:08:50 <pgroth> satya: there is a gap in understanding of some concepts in particular roles
16:08:57 <Zakim> -jorn
16:09:16 <Luc> satya, where is the example you referred to? in the document?
16:09:20 <pgroth> satya: need very well defined domains and ranges 
16:09:51 <pgroth> satya: the approach we are taking is updating the html document and leaving the owl file until later
16:10:56 <dgarijo>
16:11:44 <Luc> q?
16:12:23 <Luc> TOPIC: Provenance Model Document
<Luc>Summary: Nothing specific to report on. Members are invited to raise issues, which will determine the focus of the next iteration.
16:12:43 <pgroth> Luc: nothing specific to report on today
16:13:09 <Luc> q?
16:13:29 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:13:31 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:13:31 <Zakim> -??P66
16:13:33 <Zakim> -satya
16:13:33 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:13:34 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:13:35 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:13:36 <Zakim> -Luc
16:13:37 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:13:43 <Zakim> -??P31
16:13:44 <Zakim> -??P11
16:13:47 <Zakim> -??P64
16:27:44 <Zakim> -Curt
16:27:45 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:27:47 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Luc, Vinh, Curt, satya, +44.789.470.aaaa, Yogesh, Yolanda, MacTed, +1.509.375.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, jcheney, +1.915.603.aadd, Paulo, dgarijo, jorn
19:00:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov