From Provenance WG Wiki
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-irc 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-08 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0073.html 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph ? 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-09-12 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:?? <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> . (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 <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> ] . # 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:00:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:00:06 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-actions.rdf : 16:00:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Satya to Do named graph example on provenance ontology page  16:00:06 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-irc#T15-09-24 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, # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000467