From Provenance WG Wiki
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-prov-irc 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.25 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal 15:10:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#Provenance_Use_Cases 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal? 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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html 15:40:25 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-Use 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/83/edit . 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 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> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_progressive 16:05:24 <MacTed> participation is linguistic 16:05:52 <Luc> e.g., uses, isControlledBy, isComplementOf 16:05:53 <jorn> resp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense 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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Visualization_of_the_RDF_graph 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 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000430