Chatlog 2011-09-15

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.

14:47:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:47:07 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:47:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:47:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:47:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:47:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:47:12 <trackbot> Date: 15 September 2011
14:48:50 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:48:55 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:49:01 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:16 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:50:44 <pgroth> anybody up for scribing?
14:51:43 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
14:55:30 <pgroth> can I get a scribe?
14:58:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:58:30 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:58:34 <kai> kai has joined #prov
14:58:49 <rgolden> rgolden has joined #prov
14:58:58 <pgroth> can I get a scribe?
14:59:02 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:59:07 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:59:27 <stain> I can scribe
14:59:35 <stain> if people not on the queue remember to say their name ;)
14:59:42 <pgroth> thanks stain
14:59:50 <pgroth> Scribe: stain
15:00:52 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:00:53 <Paolo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:56 <Zakim> sorry, Paolo, I don't know what conference this is
15:01:09 <tlebo> Zakim, this is #prov
15:01:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, Paolo, rgolden, kai, Curt, tlebo, Vinh, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:01:25 <Zakim> sorry, tlebo, I do not see a conference named '#prov' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:01:38 <MacTed> Zakim, this is prov
15:01:38 <pgroth> Zakim, this is prov
15:01:40 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:01:42 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:01:51 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:53 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:01:59 <Zakim> pgroth, this was already SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:02:05 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:02:07 <Zakim> + +1.512.524.aabb
15:02:08 <stain> pgroth: Finish within 1h due to RDF provenance telcon afterwards
15:02:15 <pgroth>
15:02:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P14, Luc, Duncan, ??P45, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, ??P61, ??P65, Sandro, ??P5, +1.512.524.aabb
15:02:21 <pgroth> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of Sep 08 telecon
15:02:25 <smiles> +1
15:02:26 <stain> +1
15:02:27 <Curt> +1
15:02:28 <Paolo> +1
15:02:32 <kai> +1
15:02:35 <tlebo> +1
15:02:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:03:00 <pgroth> Resolved: Accepted Minutes of last weeks telecon
15:03:02 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:12 <Zakim> -??P65
15:03:13 <pgroth>
15:03:14 <Zakim> +??P4
15:03:17 <stain> Topic: Action items to review
15:03:19 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:03:19 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:03:25 <Paolo> zakim, ??P4 is me
15:03:25 <stain> pgroth: no actions 
15:03:30 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P4 is me
15:03:36 <khalidbelhajjame> sorry Paolo
<stain> topic: Scribes
15:03:37 <pgroth>
15:03:44 <Paolo> not sure who I am :-)
15:03:52 <Zakim> +??P15
15:04:00 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:04:02 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:04:07 <stain> pgroth: Need more scribes, please sign up so we don't have to assign
15:04:10 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:04:25 <stain> Topic: Named graphs requirements
<pgroth> SUMMARY: Went over the various requirements for Named Graphs for the RDF Working Group. Polled who would be present at the call between the RDF working group and the provenance working group. Action item on Satya to prepare examples of where Named Graphs would be necessary.
15:04:16 <pgroth>
15:04:19 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:04:20 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:04:41 <Zakim> +Vinh
15:04:51 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:04:53 <pgroth> q?
15:04:54 <stain> pgroth: several people ave signed up for this telcon. Any comments on the requirements?
15:04:57 <Zakim> + +1.858.210.aacc
15:04:58 <Luc> who will joing the call?
15:05:05 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aadd
15:05:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P14, Luc, Duncan, khalidbelhajjame, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, ??P61, Sandro, ??P5, +1.512.524.aabb, MacTed (muted), Paolo, ??P15, Vinh, +1.858.210.aacc,
15:05:22 <Zakim> ... +1.213.290.aadd
15:05:27 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:05:28 <pgroth> +1
15:05:30 <Luc> +1
15:05:30 <kai> +1
15:05:32 <Paolo> +1
15:05:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see dcorsar, khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh, smiles, Paolo, rgolden, kai, Curt, tlebo, Vinh, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:05:37 <stain> pgroth: Say +1 if you are attending the call
15:05:40 <Luc> satya?
15:05:52 <MacTed> +1
15:05:57 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:06:00 <satya> Hi Luc, I am here
15:06:04 <stain> pgroth: the call is immediately following this call
15:06:07 <Luc> will you join rdf call?
15:06:08 <pgroth>
15:06:16 <Luc> q+
15:06:17 <stain> Thursday 15 Sep, 1215pm US Eastern time for 45-60 minutes 18:15 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 117:15 London)
15:06:18 <pgroth> Call agenda:
15:06:55 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213.290 is me
15:06:56 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:07:18 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:07:18 <satya> Can we give examples from previous work?
15:07:18 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:07:20 <stain> Luc: Concrete examples of where we need named graphs. We don't have concrete examples at this point in time. Wanted to ask members like Satya and members working with (?) 
15:07:28 <Zakim> +??P46
15:07:32 <stain> ... when would we have a serialisation to RDF where we can discuss the need for named graphs?
#15:07:37 <stain> ^^ Luc
15:07:44 <stain> satya: we can create a usecase for named graphs directly
15:08:01 <kai> q+
15:08:03 <stain> satya: we have previous examples from biomedical domains, requiring named graphs to refer to a set of provenance assertions
15:08:06 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:08:10 <stain> ... both examples can be given
15:08:33 <stain> Luc: as a working group we need to decide that indeed this is the way we want to do things. We may need an internal discussion before telling the RDF WG
15:08:40 <stain> ... to avoid misleading them
15:08:48 <stain> satya: could we have an example on the provenance ontology wiki page?
15:08:53 <stain> Luc: perhaps that, yes
15:08:57 <stain> satya: will create that and put it up
15:09:09 <stain> Luc: do this as agenda item for next week?
15:09:12 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:09:16 <Luc> q-
15:09:24 <stain> ACTION Satya: Do named graph example on provenance ontology page
15:09:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-09-22].
15:09:40 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaee
15:09:49 <stain> kai: (..) Dublin core metadata provenance group, comments on collective requirements. 
15:10:00 <stain> kai: Ability to retrieve the provenance of an RDF resource is required. 
15:10:10 <stain> kai: main thing about named graph is taht we can retrieve provenance about RDF statements
15:10:25 <stain> kai: this can be misinterpreted as te provenance of the resource (given by the URI) which we can do directly with RDF
15:10:27 <Luc> @kai, are your requirements explicit in the requirement page?
15:10:28 <stain> q+
15:10:43 <satya> q+
15:10:44 <tlebo> Will we be adding the named graphs examples to ?
15:10:46 <pgroth> ack kai
15:10:48 <Zakim> +Yolanda
<stain> stain: Possible usecase - multiple provenance graphs from multiple asserters over the same process which could be in disagreement
15:10:51 <pgroth> ack stain
15:11:14 <pgroth> ack satya
15:11:27 <stain> satya: Responding to Kai - on ability to refer to aprts of provenance
15:11:42 <stain> satya: distinction to bring up, named graphs and reifications allow you to make assertion on statement level
15:12:03 <kai> q+ to ask for an example
15:12:07 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:12:13 <stain> satya: which would let you refer to provenance of RDF subject, predicate and resource level
15:12:22 <stain> satya: named graph would only give you the granularity of statements
15:12:37 <tlebo> +1, didn't quite follow Satya's distinction.
15:12:42 <stain> kai: not sure when that granularity would be helpful
15:12:49 <stain> satya: would explain tis on the wikipage
15:12:52 <tlebo> difference between an RDF statement and its S, P, and O.
15:12:56 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:12:58 <stain> satya: provenance context entity, google that - example scenario
15:13:22 <stain> satya: need to explain the point of why..
15:13:28 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:13:28 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:13:30 <MacTed> q+
15:13:30 <stain> pgroth: about kai's requirement, could you put that there?
#15:13:35 <stain> Zakim: who is speaking?
15:13:36 <pgroth> ack kai
15:13:37 <Zakim> kai, you wanted to ask for an example
15:13:39 <pgroth> ack MacTed
15:13:54 <Zakim> +??P49
15:14:05 <satya> @Mac: I don't think there is a difference
15:14:06 <stain> MacTed: what is the difference, if the resource is a building, brick, etc.. granularity requirement for an entity should be the same
15:14:09 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P49 is me
15:14:09 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:14:18 <kai> q+
15:14:23 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:14:28 <stain> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:14:40 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 21 (14%), ??P14 (22%), MacTed (19%)
15:14:52 <pgroth> ack kai
15:14:59 <stain> pgroth: collection of smaller things
15:15:03 <Zakim> +??P0
15:15:22 <pgroth> q?
15:15:35 <stain> kai: you want to describe provenance of something, at least you have a good possiblity to identify a set of RDF statements with named graphs. Reification, yes, but you can't directly talk about a set of statements because you can't identify them. But I don't see this to have antying to do with granuliaryt
15:15:52 <stain> MacTed: should reword requirements 2 to "Ability to retrieve the provenance of a set of triples"
15:16:17 <pgroth> q?
15:16:20 <stain> pgroth: Kai and Satya has different requirements - we might not understand Satya's reqs which he will clarify
15:16:27 <stain> pgroth: we'll discuss this afterwards
15:16:51 <tlebo> what about named graphs needs to be handled as something more than files in a directory?
15:16:44 <stain> Topic: Name for the standard
<pgroth> Summary: Resolved that PROV will be the name of the standard
<stain> Proposed: "Prov" as the name for the standard
15:16:50 <stain> pgroth: Moving towards PROV - Luc can explain
15:17:07 <stain> Luc: Last week's telcon there was strong support for the name "Prov"
15:17:27 <stain> Luc: this was put out on email last Friday, but not received much feedback except from GK who did not oppose it
15:18:06 <stain> RESOLVED: Name was decided as Prov / PROV  (casing not decided)
15:18:08 <sandro> It's just a name;  I wouldn't all-caps it.
15:18:19 <stain> Agree - we said last week that it was not a acronym
15:18:49 <stain> TOPIC: First working draft of the PAQ
<pgroth> Summary: Discussed the time table for producing a first working draft of the PAQ document. It seems that it will be possible but is dependent on the delivery of the conceptual model.
15:19:11 <stain> pgroth: Time table for this. GK is not on the phone. 
#15:19:17 <stain> (who?)
#15:19:23 <pgroth> Yogesh
15:19:26 <Luc> q+
15:19:29 <stain> Yogesh: nothing to add
15:19:57 <stain> Luc: In last weeks call, we are still aiming to release by end of month - to do this we need a resolution by the group that we are willing to release the document as working drafts
15:20:14 <stain> Luc: would like to have the documents approved on the 29th in 2 weeks time
15:20:48 <stain> Luc: to do so we will finish the model document this week, ontology document following soon. Wanted to know if PAQ document would follow same time table
15:21:02 <stain> pgroth: hangup on PAQ document is dependent on conceptual model 
15:21:21 <stain> pgroth: GK has emailed that we need to have those terms clearly defined in conceptual model
15:21:40 <stain> pgroth: don't know the details. Likely we can follow the same timeline, but a week later for PAQ
15:21:42 <pgroth> q?
15:21:45 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:21:45 <stain> pgroth: Any other comments?
15:21:58 <stain> TOPIC: Formal model document
<pgroth> Summary: Discussed extending the explanation of the formal model document to use a scientific workflow example in particular to illustrate roles. Discussed attaching roles to entities instead of a relationship. Key discussion item was how to make associating roles "natural" in RDF. The group also discussed how to represent attributes of entities within OWL. 
15:22:14 <stain> satya: discussion on role
15:22:24 <stain> satya: call on Monday, discussing how to model roles and how to interpret them in our model
15:22:34 <stain> pgroth: that's the next discussion point
#15:22:39 <stain> The agenda for the call
15:22:46 <stain> satya: working on extensibility of prov ontology
#15:22:50 <stain> ^^ Satya
15:23:06 <stain> satya: how different domains can extend ontology, doing concrete examples
15:23:25 <stain> satya: to see if we can make Taverna example as an other usecase to deminstrate extension with new classes and properties for scientific workflows
15:23:32 <pgroth> q?
15:23:40 <Luc> q+
15:23:40 <stain> q+
15:23:46 <Paolo> +1 for using the Taverna example
15:23:50 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:24:07 <stain> Luc: Is this document to become a normative document, is it then appropriate to have an example for specific technology like Taverna, or a more neutral example
15:24:26 <stain> Luc: Perhaps don't specify this as part of the specs
15:24:36 <tlebo> can we accumulate tool-specific concrete examples on the wiki?
15:24:37 <stain> satya: take out Taverna specific details, but follow the scenario in a general way
15:25:47 <stain> stain: Would not include specific Taverna-details, but do a general simplified example for scientific workflows - good because one can also show a diagram of the abstract workflow
15:24:47 <pgroth> ack stain
15:25:05 <dgarijo> I agree with Satya. It is just a Taverna workflow, but could be any scientific workflow system
15:25:41 <pgroth> q?
15:26:06 <stain> pgroth: so build another example from the Taverna example, but do a general one?
15:26:08 <dgarijo> @stain: +1
15:26:21 <stain> satya: perhaps just a diagram on how Stian could hae extended the ontology, and some explanation
15:26:31 <stain> Ilkay: Could also try to validate this from the Kepler point of view
15:26:42 <stain> satya: that would help a lot - you could work with Stian
15:27:08 <stain> Ilkay: Will contact Stian
15:27:20 <stain> Subtopic: Roles and times - how they can be associated with Used and Generated
15:27:23 <Luc> q+
15:27:37 <stain> satya: could Luc bring up the initial issue?
15:27:42 <pgroth> ace Luc
15:27:46 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:27:56 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:28:04 <stain> Luc: Conceptual model defines a type of relationship, Process execution Used an Entity, or an Entity was Generated by an PE
15:28:32 <stain> Luc: and there are some properties to those relations, like te notion of "role" which we just call a qualifier in the model, describing the type of interaction
15:28:38 <stain> not just binary relation, an n-ary relation
15:28:40 <Paolo> q+
15:28:59 <stain> Luc: Back some years ago in an early OPM serialisation, these n-ary relations was exposed as resources
15:29:13 <stain> there were some comments that it was not a very natural RDFisation
15:29:26 <stain> Luc: OPMV used RDF properties to express those relations
15:29:27 <Paolo> q-
15:29:30 <Zakim> +??P38
15:29:40 <stain> Luc: Which is fine if you don't talk about roles and times together with Use/Generation
15:29:49 <stain> Luc: But what if you want to do this, how would you do this in RDF
15:29:49 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:30:02 <Zakim> -??P46
15:30:14 <stain> satya: what we discussed was to specically have a class Role, we have been discussing how to model this
15:30:22 <GK1> zakim, ??P38 is me
15:30:22 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
15:30:30 <stain> satya: we can use the approach of where a Role is a special type of Entity
15:30:56 <stain> satya: in the example of Khalid - Khalid as a person, say as a researcher at Univ of Manchester
15:31:08 <stain> satya: but Khalid at a restaurant is te role of Customer
15:31:16 <stain> satya: or play football, where he assumes the role of a GoalKeeper
15:31:26 <stain> satya: the specialisation that Luc described in a model perspective
15:31:39 <stain> satya: we are then pushing the specialisation from the property to the entity itself
15:31:54 <stain> satya: Khalid can assume these different roles
15:31:58 <Paolo> q+
15:32:07 <stain> satya: we can relate entities to these roles - and on the role we can assert things like time, etc.
15:32:24 <stain> Paolo: We had a brief discussion with Satya and the rest of the group
15:32:25 <GK1> So what is he at a restaurant talking research with colleagues?
15:32:28 <tlebo> I'm not sure we need to relate the Used entity with a distinct Role - Why not put the role directly on the Used Entity?
15:32:57 <pgroth> q?
15:32:59 <stain> Paolo: not a relationship, but a persona, an Entity assumes this for the duration of this action
15:33:02 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:33:13 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:33:20 <stain> Paolo: temporarily assocated to entities by way of specialisation, interesting, but departure from model
15:33:25 <dgarijo> @tlebo: you could do that by specializing used, but the role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships
15:33:26 <satya> @GK: Can you please clarify
15:33:30 <tlebo> BTW, the notes from the OWL telecon are at
15:33:34 <pgroth> q?
15:33:50 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: agree with Paolo. 
15:33:58 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: relationships we are describing are with relation to attributes
15:34:14 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if we want to map this, we need to define the relationship in the contextual model as first class citizens
15:34:16 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:34:28 <tlebo> re "role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships" - that is fine and a Good Thing. But let's put the n-ary directly as the Entity that is used by the PE.
15:34:30 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: Luc said someone stated this as a bad idea.. but.. 
15:34:31 <GK1> @Satya - I was thinking that it has been said that there can only be one role used - so if it's applied to the "person", which applies?
15:34:39 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if we can't define the relationships as classes in OWL
15:34:40 <pgroth> q?
15:34:41 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:34:46 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:34:48 <Luc> q+
15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:34:58 <Luc> wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1) 
15:35:13 <satya> @GK - no I meant multiple roles can be used
15:35:13 <dgarijo> @tlebo: it is modeled that way already
15:35:18 <GK1> (@Satya - being late joining, I may be missing the point.)
15:35:28 <stain> @GK1 no, it should be possible to use it in different roles in same PE? 
15:35:40 <smiles> q+
15:35:44 <stain> Luc: Value of the entity at a given port - ordering
15:35:46 <GK1> @Satya, @Stian: Ah, OK
15:35:51 <stain> Luc: one example we want to support in the model
15:36:09 <stain> @GK1 Multiple generation roles for same entity is more interesting :)
15:36:21 <stain> Luc: Role might have been misunderstood - not like in role-based access controlled
15:36:32 <stain> Luc: It is given information about the actual usage in the system
15:36:36 <Zakim> - +1.858.210.aacc
15:36:38 <dgarijo> @stain, I think that with this approach it is covered too
15:36:44 <stain> Luc: not sure about satya's notion of Role as subclass of Entity
15:36:47 <pgroth> q?
15:36:50 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:37:01 <stain> @dgarijo I believe so too 
15:37:09 <Paolo> q+
15:37:17 <satya> @Luc: yes, we can model the qualifiers using roles as we discussed
15:37:25 <dgarijo> @stain: they would be 2 roles used by the pe and assumed by the same entity
15:37:29 <stain> smiles: about expressibility (???)  - has relationships of roles and time information
15:37:32 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:37:37 <stain> (could someone fill in first bit of smiles argument?)
15:38:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:38:20 <stain> Paolo: supportive of example Luc gave, good on general req to codify this relationship which won't go away. smiles idea is sensible - two-layer approach where you can express this or not
15:38:56 <stain> Paolo: interesting as Satya described it - for the duration of an activity, an entity assumes a persona/role - but I'm afraid..(?) this example. could Satya explain?
15:38:57 <smiles> my argument was to have 2 ontology representations: one is intuitive, maybe relies on reasoning but lacks expressivity; the other allows expression of time on edges etc. but relies on "used" etc being classes
15:38:59 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:39:02 <pgroth> q?
15:39:03 <tlebo> @stain - smiles' two layers?
15:39:19 <smiles> (a la OPMV and OPMO)
15:39:30 <satya> q+
15:39:37 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: RDF simon of having two versions - like the notion of roles. If we want to do this properly will not appear in the simplified version, it qualifies the relationship
15:39:45 <tlebo> I don't think it's about simple vs. complex, it's about whether the extra context (role, time) is asserted on the used Entity or not.
15:39:49 <pgroth> ack satya
15:39:49 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: would it be sensible to have the simplified version in the ontology
15:40:00 <stain> @tlebo that makes sense
15:40:10 <stain> satya: not two versions of ontology, Role should be part of ontology
15:40:18 <stain> satya: question is what the information we are trying to represent
15:40:31 <stain> satya: statements on the entity or on the process execution
15:40:45 <tlebo> satya: two distinct things: (I missed the intro)
15:40:51 <Paolo> q+
15:41:01 <tlebo> qualifier on the relationship vs. qualifier on the entity.
15:41:08 <stain> satya: say entity on port 1, ordering 1 - are these properties on the entity itself - qualifier on the entity, then modelling roles as entity allows us to say this
15:41:18 <stain> satya: that entity was the first package on a port
15:41:31 <pgroth> q?
15:41:32 <Luc> why is it a qualification of the entity? it's not an attribute of the entity?
15:41:33 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:41:55 <stain> @Luc agree - and an entity can be used for multiple roles wit different properties
15:42:06 <stain> like a hammer used both for hammering nails and pulling them out
15:42:06 <Luc> @stain, indeed
15:42:33 <stain> (but you could say those are two views of the hammer?)
15:42:43 <tlebo> Does this work?    :my_pe prov:used [ a prov:Entity; prov:actually :Khalid; a prov:Role, a restaurant:Customer, time:begin :t1, time:end :t2 ] ?
15:43:09 <stain> Paolo: (..) complex bit you need to make explicit. that data was produced.. (?) 
15:43:17 <stain> @tlebo that is satya's proposal, yes
15:43:27 <stain> @tlebo kind of like ORE proxies
15:43:46 <stain> satya: (..) customer left the restaurant at this point in time, etc. 
15:43:54 <stain> Paolo: we don't have this in the abstract model
15:44:01 <stain> satya: possibly need to bring this up to the WG 
15:44:12 <tlebo> @stain, thanks, I agree with this approach. Before Monday's telecon with Luc, I conceived of Role and the used Entity as distinct (but I don't like that difference without a purpose).
15:44:12 <stain> Paolo: like the idea of qualifying entities, bu tneed to bring this into the language and discuss this
15:44:40 <stain> pgroth: no final agreement, but conversation! Need to move on on the agenda
15:44:57 <stain> Subtopic: How can we identify attributes of an entity
15:45:06 <stain> Luc: Identify an entity and attribute (key-value pairs)
15:45:19 <stain> Luc: these describe something constant int he world during the duration of the entity's existence
15:45:25 <dgarijo> if anyone is interested to particiate, we have our ontology telecon on Mondays :)
15:45:31 <stain> Luc: Need to know which attributes have been "stamped" on the entity to characterise it
15:45:41 <stain> Luc: Don't know how to find these attributes with the OWL mapping
15:45:55 <stain> Luc: Some examples were discussed, Stian had one proposal, but don't know if this has been incorporated
15:45:56 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:46:47 <GK> @Stian, that sounds like reading too much into anonimiy of a node
15:46:52 <tlebo> The entity need NOT be a bnode/anonymous. It can be named with a URI (the bnodes in examples are a shorthand).
15:47:12 <GK> ... you can assign a new URI a an anlymous node without changing the meaning
15:47:13 <tlebo> *used Entity
15:48:10 <stain> Stian: suggested :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] 
15:48:12 <Luc> we could use named graphs to "wrap" the attributes
15:48:47 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to introduce Properties or Attributes into the formal model - or characterized-by, descibed-by
15:49:09 <pgroth> q?
15:49:12 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: then it can be instances of this - distinguish characterized attributes and other supplemental
15:49:15 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:49:36 <tlebo> How would :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ]     handle :entity prov:??  <> . (MY _actual_ URI,not a description of me)
15:49:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: what is the scenario given - most of the time attributes on the entity will be part of characterizing it
15:49:37 <GK> @Stian :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ; [ :location "London" ; :color :blue ] . is also valid?
15:50:11 <stain> @GK - no, it has granularity 1 so that those nodes would be merged
15:50:29 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: not quite clear yet..
15:50:38 <stain> Luc: Might have a series of properties your thing has. Like a colour
15:50:41 <GK> @stian quite - just clarifying.
15:50:42 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aabb
15:50:43 <stain> Luc: (car colour example)
15:50:49 <stain> @GK it is an important point
15:50:51 <tlebo> :entity :charactizedBy [ owl:sameAs  <> ]  . # would fit, but is a bit indirect.
15:51:05 <stain> Luc: It is an active assertion by the asserter to say that some attributes were constant. 
15:51:15 <stain> Luc: The asserter might not care about colour, but talk about registration of the car
15:51:30 <stain> Luc: Although the colour is recorded, it might not be part oft he characterisation made by the asserter
15:51:51 <stain> Luc: We want to distinguish what the asserter says characterizes an entity or other props
15:52:02 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: so someone else added the colour attribute?
15:52:03 <stain> Luc: right
15:52:11 <stain> pgroth: how to write this down in OWL.. given the time
15:52:13 <tlebo> Luc's point about distinguishing between assertions of provenance maker and OTHER assertions about the same thing - this is handled by placing those attributess on the used :Entity, no?
15:52:23 <stain> pgroth: we can keep discussing this on mailing list and move on to conceptual model agenda item
15:52:27 <pgroth> q?
15:52:33 <stain> TOPIC: Conceptual Model
<pgroth> Summary: Paolo and Luc gave an update on their progress on revising the Conceptual Model Document. Significant updates have been made to try and address a number of issues. The aim is to release an updated version on Monday. 
15:52:44 <GK> Update recent?
15:52:52 <stain> Paolo: moving forward with Luc
15:53:06 <stain> Paolo: on track for internal release tomorrow
15:53:12 <Luc> we should go for Monday release, realistically
15:53:27 <stain> Paolo: few things in flux, a section on providing a high-level overview of model
15:53:30 <stain> Paolo: working on that
15:53:45 <stain> Paolo: adding a more precise description on what we mean by collections and relationships to support collection membership
15:54:03 <stain> Luc: spent some time thinking about entities, following issues/emails by GK
15:54:12 <GK> Good, I look forward to seeing the update.
15:54:21 <stain> Luc: we came to a resolution here, a reasonable way to talk about entities
15:54:32 <stain> Luc: Using them in the document
15:54:33 <GK> "here" is earlier this telecon?
15:54:42 <stain> (sorry I am not sure)
15:54:53 <stain> Paolo: discussion on Account - coming along
15:55:16 <stain> Paolo: shift in view from Roles and Attributes - perhaps most of the things you talk about can be qualified by attributes (key/values)
15:55:19 <stain> Paolo: some extension point
15:55:31 <stain> Paolo: one way to extend the model is to add attribute value/pairs to a profile for instance
15:55:38 <stain> Paolo: define how those are used
15:55:46 <stain> Paolo: one consequence is the discussion on wasGeneratedBy
15:55:51 <stain> Paolo: also on Account
15:56:03 <stain> Paolo: can be nested inside each other - scoping rules
15:56:19 <stain> Paolo: getting complex.. giving ourselves a few more days
15:56:22 <pgroth> q?
15:56:24 <stain> pgroth: any questions
15:56:25 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:56:26 <Luc> "here" was "at our meeting Paolo and I"
15:56:39 <satya> q+
15:56:40 <GK> @luc thanks
15:56:42 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: in two weeks time would like to have.. (? )
15:56:57 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: how would this work - we raise issues towards the doc in one week and other week..? We only have two weeks!
15:57:04 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: should plan how to manage issues
15:57:04 <Luc> q+
15:57:08 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to make it for the deadline
15:57:23 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:57:31 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:57:35 <stain> Luc: to raise issues with the tracker
15:57:44 <stain> Luc: realistically we will not address them all by end of Monday or the 29th
15:57:50 <stain> Luc: there will still be work to be done
15:58:05 <stain> Luc: want to have it in a state where we can say it is our first public working draft with clearly identified/marked issues
15:58:15 <pgroth> ack satya
15:58:19 <stain> satya: can we also have a (?) 
15:58:29 <stain> satya: if Luc/Paolo meets to have a telcon
15:58:38 <stain> Luc: meeting Paolo in London next week
15:58:40 <stain> Luc: rest by email
15:58:56 <stain> Luc: can schedule a telecon if that is wanted
15:59:05 <stain> satya: or just a skype call so we can listen in
15:59:13 <stain> Paolo: we don't have a regular call, but can set one up
15:59:22 <stain> Paolo: or join your ontology call on Mondays
15:59:25 <satya> great thanks!
15:59:34 <stain> pgroth: ok, need to end now for next telcon! (RDF WG)
15:59:36 <Zakim> -dgarijo
15:59:37 <Zakim> -tlebo
15:59:38 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
15:59:38 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
15:59:39 <Zakim> -??P61
15:59:39 <Zakim> -Luc
15:59:40 <stain> pgroth: see you all next week
15:59:40 <Zakim> -??P0
15:59:41 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:59:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
15:59:42 <dgarijo> goodbye!
15:59:43 <Zakim> -??P15
15:59:47 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaee
15:59:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
15:59:49 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:59:51 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:59:52 <stain> pgroth: will you do the magic bit of the wiki?
15:59:52 <Zakim> -??P14
15:59:55 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:59:56 <sandro> quick break before rdf/prov telecon!
16:00:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:00:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:00:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:00:06 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in :
16:00:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Satya to Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [1]
16:00:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
16:00:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Duncan, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, Sandro, +1.512.524.aabb, MacTed, Paolo, khalidbelhajjame, Vinh, +1.858.210.aacc,