From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:57:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:57:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-prov-irc 14:57:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:57:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:57:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:57:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:57:17 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov 14:57:18 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:57:18 <trackbot> Date: 01 September 2011 14:57:18 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:57:18 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 14:57:19 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:57:34 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.01 14:57:44 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:57:49 <Luc> Scribe: stain 14:57:55 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:58:04 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:58:11 <Zakim> +??P12 14:58:18 <Zakim> + +1.443.987.aaaa 14:58:28 <Zakim> +??P32 14:58:48 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aabb 14:58:58 <Luc> zakim, aabb is me <luc>Topic: Admin <luc>Summary: Minutes were approved. No outstanding action. 14:58:59 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:59:09 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aacc 14:59:12 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 14:59:15 <Luc> @stain, are you scribing? 14:59:46 <satya> zakim, +1.216.368.aacc is me 14:59:56 <Zakim> +satya; got it 15:00:06 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:00:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P12, +1.443.987.aaaa, ??P32, Luc, satya 15:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aadd 15:00:35 <Zakim> +??P57 15:00:35 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:00:35 <Luc> we don't seem to have a scribe 15:00:36 <Curt> zakim, +1.443.987.aaaa is me 15:00:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, Curt, Edoardo, Zakim, RRSAgent, GK, Paolo, satya, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot 15:00:45 <Zakim> +??P75 15:00:54 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 15:00:57 <GK> zakim, ??P57 is me 15:01:01 <Zakim> +Curt; got it 15:01:11 <Zakim> +??P78 15:01:15 <Zakim> +??P77 15:01:27 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:01:31 <Luc> Scribe: GK 15:01:33 <Zakim> -??P78 15:01:35 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:01:44 <stain> Luc: sorry I was late 15:02:12 <Luc> stain: do you still want to scribe, we are starting ... 15:02:12 <stain> skype was not playing along 15:02:59 <stain> Luc: Requirements for main draft 15:03:05 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:03:07 <stain> Luc: Talk about provenance ontology 15:03:17 <stain> Luc: suggests to drop document from agenda 15:03:29 <GK> Luc: accept minutes of Aug 25 telecon 15:03:31 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Aug 25 telecon 15:03:36 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-08-25 15:03:37 <satya> +1 15:03:42 <Curt> +1 15:03:43 <Paolo> (wasn't there) 15:03:44 <dcorsar> +1 15:03:47 <GK> 0 (not present) 15:03:52 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaee 15:03:52 <stain> 0 (not present) 15:03:53 <Edoardo> +1 15:03:55 <smiles> +1 15:03:56 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaff 15:04:03 <StephenCresswell> +1 15:04:12 <Zakim> +??P17 15:04:15 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of Aug 25 telecon 15:04:18 <GK> Minutes accepted 15:04:29 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me 15:04:30 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov 15:04:30 <GK> Luc: review actions 15:04:35 <GK> No outstanding actions 15:04:34 <Luc> TOPIC: Named graphs requirements <Luc>Summary: we reviewed the list of requirements that have been identified for named graphs so far. It was agreed that this list will be finalized by next week (by Satya, Graham, Simon and Luc). Tentative date for call with RDF-WG is Sep 15, after our regular teleconference. 15:04:42 <GK> Luc: Named graph requirements 15:04:59 <stain> Luc: The RDF working group would like to have a telcon to hear our requirements 15:05:00 <GK> Luc: RDF WG would like teleconference to understand requirements. 15:05:04 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph 15:05:06 <stain> Luc: A wiki page made by Satya 15:05:12 <Zakim> +stain; got it 15:05:17 <Luc> q? 15:05:19 <GK> @Stian - are you taking over 15:05:20 <satya> @Luc: Is there a tentative date for the telcon? 15:05:26 <stain> @GK sure - if you mute your keyboard :) 15:05:44 <Zakim> + +1.860.995.aagg 15:05:45 <GK> Done. 15:05:48 <Zakim> +??P21 15:05:59 <GK> Scribe: Stian 15:06:06 <stain> Luc: 2011-09-15 The 15th of September as tentative date - after the normal telcon - extra 45 mins 15:06:11 <stain> Luc: But not yet decided 15:06:26 <satya> me and Paul 15:06:29 <stain> Luc: Who submitted the requirements of the wiki? Could authors indicate? 15:06:31 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:06:40 <satya> q+ 15:06:49 <Zakim> +??P27 15:06:54 <GK> q+ 15:06:56 <stain> Luc: Any other requirements? Simon? 15:06:59 <sandro> zakim, ??P27 is Sandro 15:06:59 <Zakim> +Sandro; got it 15:06:59 <stain> smiles: All there 15:07:11 <stain> Satya: Wanted to add more points before telcon 15:07:16 <satya> q- 15:07:17 <Luc> q? 15:07:20 <stain> Luc: Also had some ideas - need to check if they are captured 15:07:24 <Luc> ack gk 15:07:37 <Zakim> +??P41 15:07:46 <stain> GK: By email - nature of provenance. Two possible roles for named graphs - which might be quite specific 15:07:53 <stain> GK: 1) Handling of accounts 15:07:54 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P41 is me 15:07:54 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:08:04 <stain> GK: 2) Handling of contextual assertions of provenance 15:08:25 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov 15:08:39 <stain> GK: See my response in email response to Luc 15:08:54 <stain> GK: Need a way to encapsulate provenance statements to relate to a context 15:08:56 <Zakim> +??P42 15:09:03 <stain> GK: Suggest to not discuss this in this telcon as it can be complex 15:09:10 <jorn> Zakim: ??p42 is me 15:09:26 <stain> Luc: Could GK add this as a potential requirement on the wiki page? 15:09:54 <stain> ACTION GK: Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph 15:09:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-09-08]. 15:09:57 <Luc> TOPIC: Name for the standard <Luc> Summary: A straw poll was conducted on current proposals for standard name. Results will be communicated by email. Final decision, hopefully, will be taken next week. 15:09:57 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov 15:10:35 <stain> Luc: First draft to be released end of month - need a name for the model/language/etc. Proposals http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions 15:10:58 <stain> Luc: Straw poll here - but want to hear what people think about names 15:11:22 <satya> @Luc WE are counting PIF twice? 15:11:39 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aahh 15:11:51 <Luc> 1,1,1 15:11:54 <stain> Luc: Particpants of the call have 3 votes - you can vote 3 on same name, 1 vote on 3 names, 3+1, etc 15:12:01 <Luc> q? 15:12:08 <Vinh> Zakim, +1.937.343.aahh is me 15:12:08 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it 15:12:48 <stain> Satya: Worried about double-counting PIF (#15, #16) 15:13:18 <stain> Satya: Suggest counting 15+16 as one 15:13:23 <Edoardo_> Edoardo_ has joined #prov 15:13:28 <stain> Luc: 15+16 now merged on wiki 15:13:33 <dgarijo> +3 to PIL 15:13:36 <stain> Luc: Indicate which ones you are voting for now 15:13:43 <smiles> 11, 11, 15 15:13:44 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:13:45 <satya> 15, 15, 15 15:13:49 <Paolo> 3 14 15 15:13:52 <Lena> 3, 10, 15 15:13:57 <Curt> 5 15 14 15:14:06 <dcorsar> 3, 5, 14 15:14:08 <GK> 12, 13, 15 15:14:08 <stain> 5, 10, 12 15:14:15 <dgarijo> (5, 5, 5) 15:14:20 <sandro> 10 15 15:14:34 <Edoardo_> 3, 5, 11 15:14:40 <stain> Luc: We'll count the votes offline and send an email and hope to progress from there 15:14:43 <Zakim> +??P29 15:14:51 <stain> echo, echo 15:14:56 <Zakim> -??P75 15:14:57 <Edoardo_> Edoardo_ has left #prov 15:15:04 <Zakim> + +329331aaii 15:15:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P29 is me 15:15:07 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 15:15:07 <Edoardo_> Edoardo_ has joined #prov 15:15:18 <zednik> 5, 5, 15 15:15:20 <Luc> TOPIC: Primer Document <luc>Summary: We reopened the issue of writing a Primer. It was felt that the model is not stable enough, and too much of a moving target, to be able to write a primer. However, developing an example in full would be beneficial. Simon will come back to the WG with a proposal. 15:15:30 <Edoardo_> Edoardo_ has joined #prov 15:15:45 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaii is me 15:15:45 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it #15:15:52 <Zakim> +Sandro.a 15:16:06 <stain> Luc: Discussed this 4 weeks ago, and said not to do a primer at that stage. Paolo and Luc as editors of model documents tries to illustrate the model - but also to specify it. It's difficult to do both in same document. 15:16:34 <Luc> q? 15:16:40 <stain> Luc: GK commented that this is not so useful - it's time to get on with a Primer document. Simon has expressed interest on worker on primer. 15:16:41 <GK> q+ to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer 15:16:56 <stain> Luc: Would you want to work on a primer - and what do you expect? 15:17:04 <smiles> q+ 15:17:33 <stain> GK: I commented that a 50k feet view would belong in the model. Don't seem to be completely clear in consensus in what model contains, so uncertain about doing a primer now while model still in flux. 15:17:33 <satya> +1 for GK's point 15:18:09 <stain> GK: Also said that example was not useful - the complexity was such that it was as hard to understand to example as the message 15:18:32 <Luc> ack GK 15:18:32 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer 15:18:38 <stain> GK: Perhaps that example would fit better in a primer - but still seed need for a overview in the model 15:18:50 <Luc> ack smiles 15:19:01 <stain> smiles: example sounds good to include in the primer 15:19:16 <satya> q+ 15:19:18 <stain> smiles: more clarity step by step - say why things are done how they are. Might be reasonable to start with a simpler example 15:19:56 <stain> smiles: high-level view on model, agree with GK. High-level in model doc, but also in the primer in more non-normative terms. 15:20:20 <stain> smiles: A high-level description in the model document might easily always be normative - easier to suggest how to interpret model in the primer #15:20:41 <Zakim> -Sandro.a 15:20:53 <stain> satya: Agree with previous, primer has 3 functions. 1. Simple example. How would model elements be used in non-normative description. 15:21:18 <stain> Satya: 2: How would this be modelled in OWL/RDF, bits of ontology doc. 3: How would it be accessed - elements of query document. 15:21:23 <GK> q+ to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec 15:21:28 <stain> Satya: Then give overall overview of how to handle provenance information 15:21:54 <stain> Satya: Now is not the optimal point for working on primer - look at it in the end of september when draft is published and discussed issues have settled 15:21:57 <Luc> q? 15:22:01 <Paolo> +1 for starting after initial model doc has been released 15:22:01 <Luc> ack satya 15:22:08 <Luc> ack gk 15:22:08 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec 15:22:20 <Zakim> - +1.860.995.aagg 15:22:41 <stain> GK: The representation in RDF should be a normative output - assumed that abstract model -> RDF would become part of model document. 15:23:01 <stain> Luc: Answer - No. RDF representation not in model document. 15:23:07 <Zakim> + +1.860.995.aajj 15:23:12 <stain> Luc: It would be in the formalisation document led by (?) 15:23:13 <Paolo> RDF repr should be somewhere but not in the conceptual model doc 15:23:42 <stain> @Paolo - yes - it should be formal, but not neccessarily part of the conceptual model 15:23:57 <stain> Luc: Illustrations can be done in RDF and/or the abstract .. - but not by end of September 15:24:12 <satya> q+ 15:24:16 <Zakim> -??P42 15:24:24 <stain> GK: If this is to be useful on the web we need something to interoperate between application, and at least one normative format like RDF would be required 15:24:35 <Luc> ack satya 15:24:37 <Zakim> - +1.860.995.aajj 15:24:39 <stain> Luc: The normative spec will be included in the doc made by Satya 15:24:51 <Paolo> @GK mapping to RDF /is/ normative but in the ontology doc 15:25:13 <stain> Satya: The Ontology is the normative representation of the model. The illustrative RDF should corresponding to the normative OWL 15:25:17 <Zakim> + +1.860.995.aakk 15:25:24 <stain> Satya: Illustrated examples would be by the normative RDF format 15:25:24 <Luc> q? 15:25:29 <GK> I'm Ok with the normative mappingt to RD being in the ontology doc 15:25:59 <stain> Luc: Is the feeling to wait until end of September? 15:26:04 <Lena> me + stephan have defined the primer to be on our task force 15:26:10 <stain> Luc: Example is to have an example explained - ultimately a primer view 15:26:10 <satya> q+ 15:26:13 <Lena> but we need the model to be described first 15:26:16 <stain> q+ 15:26:24 <GK> I think when to start the primer depends on whoever wants to do the work :) 15:26:31 <Luc> ack satya 15:26:34 <Paolo> q+ 15:26:44 <stain> Satya: Could be useful as Smiles would work on primer, if he participates more with the other 3 groups and identify content that can be migrated to the primer later 15:26:53 <Lena> i agree with graham that it would be a wild goose hunt to produce a primer while the model is a shifting target 15:27:18 <stain> Satya: Not a separate wiki page! 15:27:34 <stain> Satya: Do as comments as part of provenance.. query.. task force wiki page 15:27:46 <Luc> ack st 15:28:13 <GK> If start primer now, I think it should start as an proper draft document. +1 to not creating yet another wiki page. 15:28:38 <Luc> ack paolo 15:28:54 <stain> Stian: If we don't have a primer, will there for the initial draft be an overview document that shows a quick introduction of what the model/ontology is, etc. 15:29:01 <stain> Paolo: If someone works on primer now, should shadow the other work 15:29:14 <stain> Paolo: Should start work on a complete example - iterative process 15:29:31 <stain> @GK +1 15:29:37 <stain> Paolo: Would inform the primer 15:29:52 <Luc> q? 15:29:57 <stain> Paolo: See mutual benefits from Smiles and others shadowing 15:30:01 <smiles> q+ 15:30:04 <Zakim> +??P3 15:30:11 <stain> Luc: Paolo suggests working on complete example - a new example to design, or data journalism example? 15:30:19 <jorn> zakim, ??p3 is me 15:30:19 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:30:21 <stain> Paolo: Data J example not used in conceptual model docs 15:30:38 <GK> I'd say several examples: simple to complex, chosen to illusrate and/or test different points. 15:30:38 <stain> Paolo: If it is a good example, but no constraints 15:30:53 <Luc> q? 15:30:56 <stain> @GK, agree - show different bits instead of a massive example to learn first 15:30:57 <satya> @Paolo: :) 15:31:11 <stain> Paolo: Should anyway be a different example from the model document 15:31:47 <stain> smiles: an example section in the concept model document and formal document, and in access document - and then someone to edit those sections so that they are explained. Would that make sense? 15:31:58 <stain> Paolo: Not quite - something complementary 15:32:02 <Luc> q? 15:32:05 <Luc> ack smil 15:32:21 <stain> Paolo: That the model is sound and explain it, but a different model. Primer should not be part of the other documents. 15:32:56 <stain> smiles: Not the impression I got from others - they suggest it was too early, just wanted better examples in the normative documents 15:32:57 <GK> q+ to ask simon what he feels about this 15:33:06 <GK> q- 15:33:16 <stain> smiles: not much in either way 15:33:26 <satya> q+ 15:33:27 <stain> smiles: someone can work on the example within the context of the existing docs 15:33:57 <stain> Luc: Then to replace the example section with something different? Don't want two examples in conceptual model doc 15:34:18 <stain> smiles: expect several examples in the primer. add more text to existing examples to explain and clarify at this stage 15:34:21 <GK> +1 independent choice of what goes in model document 15:34:46 <stain> Luc: have a problem with File example does not cover all the concepts 15:34:54 <Luc> q? 15:34:54 <stain> Luc: Would be useful with an example that highlights all concepts 15:35:08 <stain> smiles: raise issues in that regard - edit the example 15:35:17 <Luc> ack satya 15:35:28 <GK> Is it appropriate/necessary for the model document to have examples covering *all* aspects? 15:35:40 <stain> satya: in the primer document with should have one example, and use this in all the documents. 15:36:05 <stain> satya: would DataJournalism example be better, Luc? 15:36:23 <GK> If model document is formal description, that should cover the essential content, methinks 15:36:25 <stain> Luc: DataJ example is fairly long, does not expose all concepts either 15:36:54 <stain> satya: Try to create snapshot examples for each model, in provenance ontology group we discussed this. Then do bottom-up approach for each element - then consolidate as one big example 15:36:59 <Lena> +1 for bottom-up! 15:37:00 <zednik> q+ 15:37:16 <stain> Luc: Worried about changing at this late stage before going first public draft 15:37:51 <stain> satya: keep file scenario, but what we have in mind, we write in down in the conceptual model, as it evolves, keep append it to the top scenario 15:37:55 <Luc> q? 15:38:07 <stain> zednik: what are we compiling all into one example? 15:38:18 <stain> zednik: may have a complicated, silly example if we merge everything into one 15:38:21 <Lena> +1 for stephan's comment 15:38:23 <Luc> ack zedn 15:38:24 <stain> @zednik +1 15:38:25 <zednik> q- 15:38:35 <satya> @Stephan - good point! 15:38:40 <GK> @zednik +1 15:38:51 <stain> Luc: So we're not quite clear yet - think a bit more and come up with a concrete proposal for next telcon 15:38:51 <Paolo> @zednik +1 -- conceptual model already has two separate scenarios 15:39:04 <Luc> q? 15:39:07 <Paolo> (file editing, Royal Society) 15:39:27 <stain> ACTION smiles: Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material 15:39:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material [on Simon Miles - due 2011-09-08]. 15:39:38 <Luc> TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions <luc>Summary: Naming conventions for model/ontology were debated. It was agreed that edge labels should contain a verb and should be expressed in past sense. Actions on editors of the conceptual/formal models to update their documents accordingly. 15:39:56 <stain> Luc: Did not reach consensus last week on past vs present tense 15:40:18 <stain> Luc: Look at what we said on the edges - some confusion last week. Proposal in the agenda 15:40:28 <dgarijo> can we post the proposal please? 15:40:34 <Luc> proposed: Edge labels contain a verb 15:40:49 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.01#Adopting_naming_conventions 15:40:49 <Luc> isUsedBy, isControlledBy, isDerivedFrom, hasParticipants 15:41:04 <dgarijo> +q 15:41:08 <stain> Luc: Example of what form of verbs we would have 15:41:35 <stain> dgarijo: agree on having verb in the edge - but would strongly disagree on 'isUsedBy' 15:41:48 <stain> dgarijo: an artifact is used by a process and produced by a process 15:42:03 <stain> Luc: not suggesting these actual labels - but the general principle 15:42:04 <Luc> q? 15:42:16 <Luc> ack dg 15:42:21 <stain> Luc: Not proposing domain/range direction now - just that the term contains a verb 15:42:24 <stain> q+ 15:43:13 <GK> This is an area where I think a 50,000 foot view would help 15:43:36 <stain> Luc: Model document lists all labels.. but we're trying to adopt a convention if verb is explicit 15:43:39 <GK> To see all the names related as a composite structure ... see if they make sense together 15:44:02 <stain> Stian: Not sure if we'll get too much of isSomethingBy - could get a bit convoulted vs. 'something' 15:44:15 <Zakim> -Sandro 15:44:24 <stain> GK: This is where a bird eye view would help - a diagram showing classes and relationships - although simplified 15:44:46 <satya> @GK: you mean a visualization of the model? 15:44:47 <dgarijo> we have generated an overview of the ontology if that's what you mean, Graham: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/a/ad/GlobalSchema.png 15:44:59 <stain> GK: Considering terms in isolation - then it's difficult as you loose the context in which they will work 15:45:03 <Zakim> +??P27 15:45:05 <Zakim> -jorn 15:45:20 <satya> @Daniel +1 15:45:26 <Zakim> +??P3 15:45:34 <jorn> zakim, ??p3 is me 15:45:34 <Zakim> +jorn; got it 15:45:46 <stain> Luc: in emails - Instead of isComplementOf - then say complement? hasParticipants -> participants 15:45:54 <stain> Luc: Satya reacted that this was not useful 15:45:58 <stain> Luc: Two conventions 15:46:14 <Luc> q? 15:46:17 <stain> Luc: what label conventions do we adopt 15:46:26 <stain> ack stain 15:46:51 <Luc> proposed: Edge labels contain a verb 15:46:58 <dgarijo> +1 15:46:59 <satya> +! 15:47:01 <StephenCresswell> +1 15:47:02 <satya> +1 15:47:03 <GK> (Truth is, I don't feel strongly about the naming convention) 15:47:06 <Curt> +1 15:47:11 <Lena> +1 15:47:11 <GK> +0.5 15:47:14 <smiles> 0 15:47:15 <stain> 0 15:47:21 <Paolo> +1 don't feel very strongly either 15:47:36 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Edge labels contain a verb 15:47:37 <zednik> +1 15:47:42 <Edoardo_> +1 15:48:00 <Luc> q? 15:48:05 <stain> Luc: If we have a verb - then we need to decide on the tense - like present or past 15:48:11 <dgarijo> +1 to PAST tense 15:48:14 <smiles> q+ 15:48:18 <Edoardo_> +1 past 15:48:21 <Paolo> Past tense 15:48:32 <Luc> ack smi 15:48:34 <dgarijo> since provenance is describing things that have already happened 15:48:43 <satya> +1 for past tense 15:48:55 <Luc> q? 15:49:07 <stain> +1 to present 15:49:09 <Curt> The other issue was whether to always include the "is" or not. 15:49:15 <Curt> instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" 15:49:23 <GK> (Next question: convention for passive or active voice? Slightly TIC) 15:49:32 <stain> Luc: Just voted to have a verb 15:49:39 <stain> Curt: "controlled by" has a verb 15:49:42 <GK> "controlled" is a verb 15:49:46 <stain> @GK right 15:50:07 <stain> ?: "used by" has a verb 15:50:22 <stain> GK: Sounds like passive or active voice 15:50:58 <stain> Luc: "Used" is a verb - "I used X" - but "X used by I".. 15:51:04 <stain> GK: Yes - it's a verb, but in passive voice 15:51:15 <stain> ?: Implicit or explicit verb 15:51:40 <GK> Sorry, that;'s the *active* voice 15:51:47 <stain> Luc: "used by" is not a verb - just "used\' 15:52:07 <Luc> q? 15:52:13 <stain> @GK, Perhaps passive is good as provenance is describing what went on 15:52:32 <stain> Luc: Unsure how to progress 15:52:41 <stain> q+ Can we say this is a separate proposal? 15:52:41 <GK> Propose that editors come up with series of names and let the gropup comment 15:52:47 <Paolo> q+ 15:52:48 <satya> @Stian: Well it depends, I think active and passive are both useful 15:52:52 <Curt> +1 keep the explicit "is" verb, passive form, past tense 15:53:17 <GK> @smiles +1 15:53:20 <stain> ?: Just a case of people being unclear with what is a verb or not - the previous proposal was accepted - we're moving on to past tense or not 15:53:44 <Luc> proposed: To use past tense for verbs 15:53:51 <Paolo> q- 15:53:51 <stain> Luc: Need to formulate a proposal 15:53:51 <dgarijo> the thing is that I would not be sure how to say that a process Used an artifact with "used by", since that means that an artifact is Used by a process 15:53:55 <smiles> +1 15:54:19 <stain> Luc: What is dgarijo suggesting..? 15:54:19 <Luc> q? 15:54:24 <GK> Example is used rather than uses ? 15:54:40 <stain> dgarijo: what would be the name of the edge of 'used' with the verb? 15:54:57 <stain> Luc: process "uses" an entity 15:55:04 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov 15:55:11 <stain> Luc: But proposal for past tense means "process used entity" 15:55:17 <GK> used vs wasUsedBy - both past tense, but different directions 15:55:30 <stain> dgarijo: Why can't we use "control" 15:55:34 <stain> @GK - exactly 15:55:47 <stain> @GK and last week we talked about temporal directions 15:56:06 <stain> dgarijo: liked better "wasControlledBy" - but someone would ask if we say "used" then why not "controlled" 15:56:30 <stain> @GK the verb is good because it highlights exactly this direction 15:56:42 <Luc> proposed: To use past tense for verbs 15:56:51 <satya> +1 15:56:51 <smiles> +1 15:56:51 <dgarijo> +1 to past tense 15:56:52 <stain> +1 15:56:52 <StephenCresswell> +1 15:56:53 <Curt> +1 15:56:54 <GK> +1 15:56:59 <zednik> +1 15:57:02 <Edoardo_> +1 15:57:05 <dcorsar> +1 15:57:08 <Paolo> +1 15:57:17 <Luc> accepted: To use past tense for verbs 15:57:38 <satya> agree 15:57:39 <stain> Luc: Implications for Satya and Paolo/Luc to update documents to use past tense and verbs 15:57:40 <Luc> q? 15:57:51 <Zakim> -??P77 15:57:53 <Luc> topic: Provenance Ontology <luc>Summary: Satya provided an update on the ontology development. The issue of toplevel concepts was identified. It was agreed that a call should resolve such issues between conceptual model and ontology. 15:57:53 <stain> @Luc shall I action that? 15:57:54 <dgarijo> @Satya, didn't you already put everything in past tense in the ontology? 15:57:59 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 15:58:12 <stain> Satya: No telcon on Monday, travelling/unavailable 15:58:26 <stain> Satya: made example of file scenario 15:58:33 <stain> satya: would like reviews and comments on this 15:58:53 <stain> satya: two objectives, define extension mechanism - how application can extend to model in their domain 15:59:02 <stain> satya: show how instances can be created using the ontology 15:59:31 <stain> satya: Pointed out that formal document includes RDF fragments showing encoding of the (?) scenario - welcome to have a look at this 15:59:35 <stain> satya: send comments as soon as possible 15:59:47 <Luc> q? 16:00:03 <dgarijo> @stain it is the crime file scenario 16:00:05 <JimMcCusker> +q 16:00:14 <stain> Luc: Would be useful to see the complete example encoded in RDF. In the document it's only shown a particular entity. Complete example? 16:00:21 <stain> satya: yes - it's at.. 16:00:42 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RDF_Graph_for_Crime_File_Scenario 16:01:04 <Zakim> -jorn 16:01:08 <dgarijo> the image: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/thumb/d/da/CrimeFileRDFGraph.png/900px-CrimeFileRDFGraph.png 16:01:09 <stain> satya: not suggesting to include the full RDF into the document 16:01:31 <stain> dgarijo: :( 16:01:51 <stain> JimMcCusker: IVPof and complement of seemsto have lost track of what is meant by those 16:02:08 <satya> @Stian: Daniel pointed to an auto generated diagram, we will re-structure that :) 16:02:08 <stain> JimMcCusker: might want to put together a page to start usecases of what this construct is adressing 16:02:19 <stain> @satya - I tried to zoom! 16:02:48 <stain> Luc: perhaps an model issue, not ontology issue 16:02:55 <stain> Luc: important to raise such issues on the tracker 16:02:56 <dgarijo> @stain: yes, maybe the rdf is better right now 16:03:09 <stain> Luc: discussion taking place - but difficult to understand what the problem is 16:03:12 <satya> @Stian: yes - we will create a separate diagram 16:03:23 <Zakim> -??P21 16:03:38 <stain> Luc: Jim Mayers does not like isComplementOf as a label - but it's not raised as an issue yet - but he seems happy with the definition 16:03:40 <satya> I also have issue with the "complement" label 16:04:25 <stain> JimMcCusker: what was talked about with complement-of seems very difficult from IVP-of 16:04:27 <Luc> q? 16:04:32 <Paolo> q+ 16:04:47 <stain> Luc: Paolo and myself changed the definition to make them uniform 16:05:06 <stain> Luc: is-complement-of had to be revised to match entity's definition - but believe it's still the same spirit of original def 16:05:08 <Luc> q? 16:05:16 <stain> Luc: Please raise this as tracker issues 16:05:28 <Zakim> +??P18 16:05:28 <Luc> ack Ji 16:05:55 <stain> JimMcCusker: tasked to formalise this is-complement-of for the ontology group - it has been difficult to trace out 16:06:03 <stain> JimMcCusker: should ignore emails and look at the wiki? 16:06:11 <stain> Luc: no - the conceptual model document 16:06:19 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html 16:06:33 <stain> Luc: but creating a set of complement-of usecases sounds good 16:06:37 <Luc> ack pao 16:06:54 <stain> Paolo: is illustrated with figure in model 16:07:00 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-IVP-of 16:07:16 <stain> Paolo: feels responsible for this - so will engage with any discussion 16:07:24 <Luc> q? 16:07:50 <stain> Luc: Satya - what are the key issues now with ontology? 16:08:08 <stain> Luc: Last week you needed better understanding of model - is it better now? 16:08:21 <stain> satya: no - need to respond to email. What are top level concepts? 16:08:41 <stain> satya: we agreed ; two top-level concepts - but you suggest there could be more top level concepots 16:08:52 <stain> satya: perhaps Luc/Paolo to attend a telcon 16:09:08 <Paolo> agree that we (two groups) should interact 16:09:08 <stain> satya: fundamental - what are the top level concepts 16:09:29 <stain> Luc: Example of Role,.. what is not entity and process execution 16:09:32 <stain> (?) 16:09:43 <dgarijo> and we are currently discussing the modeling of n-ary relationship with the role-trick you proposed, Satya 16:09:51 <stain> satya: process is a type of entity - def is a continuent, location, etc. 16:10:04 <stain> satya: sounds quite broad definition, defined in many upper level ontologies 16:10:12 <stain> Luc: Should join next week's call 16:10:17 <stain> satya: Monday 12:00 eastern 16:10:25 <Paolo> ok 16:10:33 <stain> satya: could do separate if needed 16:10:33 <Luc> q? 16:10:45 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aadd 16:10:45 <stain> Thank you! 16:10:46 <Zakim> -satya 16:10:47 <Zakim> -??P18 16:10:47 <GK> Bye 16:10:49 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:10:51 <Zakim> - +1.860.995.aakk 16:10:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:10:51 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:10:52 <Zakim> -??P17 16:10:53 <stain> Luc, what do I do now? 16:10:54 <Zakim> -Vinh 16:10:55 <stain> ok, thnx 16:10:57 <dgarijo> bye! 16:11:02 <Zakim> -stain 16:11:04 <Zakim> -Luc 16:11:05 <Zakim> -Curt 16:11:06 <Zakim> -GK 16:11:09 <Zakim> -??P32 16:11:11 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaff 16:11:12 <Zakim> -??P27 16:11:38 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:11:43 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:11:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:11:49 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:11:49 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000510