Chatlog 2011-09-22

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.

14:53:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:53:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:53:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:53:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:53:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:24 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2011
14:53:28 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:53:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:36 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:53:40 <Curt> I will scribe
14:53:57 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:54:08 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:14 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
14:54:25 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:31 <pgroth> there you go Curt
14:54:35 <pgroth> thanks for stepping up
14:55:46 <Zakim> +??P7
14:55:59 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
14:56:06 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:56:15 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me
14:56:15 <Zakim> +stain; got it
14:56:54 <pgroth> Regrets: Helena Deus, Stephan Zednik, Christine Runnegar
14:57:59 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:11 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:58:30 <Zakim> +??P48
14:58:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P48 is me
14:58:41 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:58:48 <JimMyers> JimM has joined #prov
14:59:11 <Zakim> +??P49
14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P53
14:59:34 <Zakim> +??P8
14:59:41 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
14:59:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
14:59:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:59:50 <Zakim> -??P49
14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P17
14:59:51 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
14:59:59 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:00:08 <Zakim> +??P29
15:00:08 <Luc> zaim, ??P17 is me
15:00:12 <James McCusker> Zakim, +1.518.276.aabb is me
15:00:12 <Zakim> +JimM; got it
15:00:18 <GK> zakim, ??p29 is me
15:00:18 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:00:18 <Luc> zakim, ??P17 is me
15:00:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:41 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aacc
15:01:15 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aacc is me
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it
15:01:19 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:01:44 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:45 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
15:02:03 <Zakim> +??P12
15:02:12 <tlebo> zakim, aadd is me
15:02:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:02:54 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:58 <pgroth>
15:03:04 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 15 telecon
15:03:06 <satya> +1
15:03:08 <Curt> +1
15:03:09 <Paolo> +1
15:03:11 <tlebo> +1
15:03:14 <stain> +1
15:03:14 <StephenCresswell_> StephenCresswell_ has joined #prov
15:03:15 <JimMyers> +1
15:03:18 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:47 <JimMcCusker> 0 (did not attend)
15:03:52 <Zakim> +Sandro
<Curt> Topic: Action Items to Review
<Curt> Summary: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents that may be of interest to the group
15:03:58 <pgroth>
15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P36
15:04:36 <Curt> pgroth: action on Satya superceded by Sandro's work we'll cover later -- close it
15:04:44 <khalidbelhajjame> zkim, ??P36 is me
15:04:51 <pgroth> Reviews for RDB2RDF working group specs
15:05:08 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- -- 2011-09-22 telecon agenda:
15:05:09 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents
15:05:21 <Curt> ... may be of interest to this group
15:05:42 <Luc> q?
15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P36 is me
15:06:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:06:05 <Curt> Luc: do they want us to look at a specific section?
15:06:15 <khalidbelhajjame> what is RDB2RFF?
15:06:28 <khalidbelhajjame> RDB2RDF
15:06:32 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:06:38 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF is working on relational databases
15:06:45 <Curt> ... not sure which sections we might be interested in
15:06:50 <Paolo> @khalid: mapping from Relational to RDF
15:06:57 <Curt> ... follow up to mailing list
<Curt> Topic: Scribes
<Curt> Summary: Need them, please sign up.
15:06:58 <pgroth>
15:07:08 <Curt> ... need scribes, please sign up
15:07:11 <satya> I was part of the RDB2RDF incubator group and worked on a survey - may have mentioned about provenance in that, I will try to review it
15:07:27 <Zakim> +??P16
15:07:38 <jcheney> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:07:38 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:07:46 <pgroth> q?
15:07:55 <pgroth> Topic: Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion
<Curt> Summary: Met with RDF group to discuss named graphs to determine potential changes to RDF that could support provenance requirements. Sandro provided a unifying use case. 
15:08:01 <Curt> pgroth: sandro to summarize RDF discussion
15:08:11 <sandro>
15:08:32 <Curt> sandro: last week we had a common meeting with RDF group, many from both groups
15:08:51 <Curt> ... didn't get as far as we wanted, missing some common language
15:09:13 <Curt> ... trying to determine what is needed in RDF to support provenance requirements
15:09:24 <Curt> ... where will we need RDF to support provenance
15:09:34 <Curt> ... provenance of RDF is needed by both groups
15:09:41 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:09:51 <Curt> ... sandro took action item to develop use case
15:09:52 <Zakim> +??P24
15:10:00 <Curt> ... which was sent to both groups 
15:10:24 <Curt> ... unifying use case combining multiple inputs to determine trust
15:10:46 <Curt> ... use case of restaurant reviews is a simple stand in for overall use case
15:11:07 <Curt> ... didn't schedule next telecon, but follow up on mailing list rdf-prov
15:11:22 <pgroth> q?
15:11:27 <Curt> ... hopefully make progress on addressing issues from both groups
15:11:28 <pgroth> q?
15:11:57 <Curt> pgroth: is it clear what this group needs to provide?
15:11:57 <tlebo> what was the rdf + prov list address?
15:11:58 <pgroth> q?
15:12:06 <Curt> ... what is the path forward?
15:12:20 <Curt> sandro: we haven't decided on a path forward yet
15:12:28 <Curt> ... still waiting on responses to use case
15:12:47 <jcheney> +q
15:12:53 <Curt> ... would be good to hear comments, either that is right, or here's how to change it
15:13:04 <GK> (Seems to me that we need to understand each others' language and expectations before charting a route forwards)
15:13:22 <Curt> ... please comment and feed back to sandro
15:13:41 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
15:13:57 <tlebo>
15:14:09 <Curt> jcheney: didn't attend telecon, use case reminded of incubator use cases
15:14:23 <Curt> ... someone familiar with incubator use cases may want to take a look
15:14:42 <jcheney>
15:14:43 <Curt> ... incubator had a short paper on named graphs for RDF that could help
15:14:53 <jcheney>
15:14:55 <GK> @Sandro: one reason you may not get responses is the requirement to participate in yet another mailing list
15:15:09 <Curt> sandro: please summarize large documents, since people won't read the large docs.
15:15:19 <pgroth> q?
15:15:29 <jcheney>
15:15:46 <Curt> pgroth: another issue - our conceptual model has different versions/serializations
15:16:09 <Curt> ... we could figure out how to convert our stuff into current RDF 
15:16:24 <Curt> ... it is hard to determine how RDF might change
15:16:30 <GK> @pgroth +1
15:16:39 <GK> q+ to disagree with sandro
15:17:05 <Curt> sandro: RDF lacks mechanism to express endorsement of triples
15:17:09 <JimMcCusker> q+
15:17:36 <Curt> GK: disagree - there are ways to express those things
15:17:47 <Curt> ... RDF has those mechanisms, maybe complicated, but possible
15:18:12 <Curt> ... could develop simpler mechanisms to handle them
15:18:21 <tlebo> graph literals?
15:18:24 <Curt> ... what should we call them instead of named graphs?
15:18:29 <Curt> ... just 'graphs'?
15:18:31 <pgroth> ack GK
15:18:31 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree with sandro
15:18:38 <satya> graph literal is interpreted differently from named graph
15:18:41 <pgroth> ack JimM  
15:18:44 <pgroth> q?
15:18:47 <sandro> (it's possible to do this in RDF if you define your own vocab, but there's no standard/interoperability)
15:19:13 <Curt> JimMcCusker: could use graph hashes to handle referring to the graph
15:19:16 <satya> q+
15:19:22 <Curt> JimMcCusker: there are solutions out there
15:19:26 <GK> @JimM - sounds like a possibility I had in mind...
15:19:29 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:19:32 <Curt> satya: we are conflating two issues
15:19:53 <sandro> JimM, please suggest them to public-rdf-prov?
15:19:57 <Curt> ... when you refer to a URL, the reponse you get today is different from tomorrow
15:20:11 <Curt> ... if the application needs the version, that can be modeled
15:20:25 <Curt> ... it is a modeling issue
15:20:33 <sandro> (it can be modeled, but we need a standard for how to model it, otherwise there is no interop.)
15:20:33 <GK> @satya +1
15:20:34 <Curt> ... don't mix up that with changes needed to RDF model
15:20:41 <pgroth> q?
15:20:45 <JimMcCusker>
15:20:52 <tlebo> I'm wondering how "provenance of contents in named graphs" differs from "provenance of contents in files on disk".
15:21:01 <Curt> pgroth: thanks sandro -- we'll try to help
15:21:04 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure it does.
15:21:06 <pgroth> Topic: Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model
<Curt> Summary: Discussed mapping, conceptual model will drive formal model, but constraints of technology and ambiguities may require iteration with conceptual model to clarify concepts and ensure they can be adequately represented.  Primary target of the formal model is the semantic web stack, but the conceptual model will also enable other technologies, keep interoperability in mind as the models develop.
15:21:07 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, use the purl:
15:21:24 <GK> @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ
15:21:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:21:28 <JimMyers> One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy...
15:21:33 <sandro> tlebo, maybe the tools are different.   n3 has nice syntax for it.
15:22:04 <Curt> paolo: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model
15:22:14 <Curt> ... conceptual model will drive formal model
15:22:16 <JimMcCusker> sandro, I can take that as an action.
15:22:35 <Curt> ... if OWL2 falls short, we can address
15:22:55 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aaee
15:23:09 <Curt> ... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model
15:23:21 <smiles> zakim, ??24 is me
15:23:21 <Zakim> sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24'
15:23:22 <Curt> ... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like
15:23:27 <Curt> ... consider other direction
15:23:29 <pgroth> q?
15:23:30 <smiles> zakim, ??P24 is me
15:23:30 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:23:58 <Curt> ... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model
15:24:21 <Curt> satya: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL
15:24:37 <Curt> ... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities
15:24:45 <Curt> ... they have proposed ways to model information
15:24:56 <Curt> ... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there
15:25:03 <Curt> ... are subtle differences
15:25:30 <Curt> paolo: some things won't map into OWL2 easily
15:25:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me
15:25:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:25:38 <Luc> q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies
15:25:46 <pgroth> q?
15:25:58 <Curt> satya: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages
15:26:11 <GK> @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now
15:26:18 <Curt> ... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification
15:26:43 <Curt> ... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it
15:26:57 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
15:27:08 <GK> q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack
15:27:11 <Curt> paolo: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed?
15:27:30 <khalidbelhajjame> The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best"
15:27:50 <Curt> ... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack
15:28:20 <GK> @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL
15:28:31 <Paolo> Q?
15:28:39 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, agreed
15:29:06 <Curt> satya: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first
15:29:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:29:08 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies
15:29:14 <Curt> ... then we'll address OWL2 representation
15:29:23 <pgroth> can't hear you well
15:29:30 <GK> @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts
15:29:32 <Curt> Luc: <breaking up>
15:29:44 <stain> Luc - we can't hear you well
15:29:49 <Paolo> Luc going dalek...
15:29:56 <Zakim> -GK
15:29:59 <Curt> Luc: provenance ... something ...
15:30:59 <Curt> pgroth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies
15:31:17 <Curt> ... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across 
15:31:24 <Luc> thanks paul
15:31:50 <pgroth> q?
15:31:54 <Paolo> q+
15:32:21 <Luc> my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability
15:32:32 <Curt> satya: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using
15:32:49 <Curt> ... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack
15:32:52 <pgroth> graham you on the phone?
15:33:02 <Curt> ... it may not be possible to please every technology
15:33:33 <Curt> paolo: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack?
15:33:44 <Curt> paolo: that can affect our design choices
15:33:56 <pgroth> q?
15:33:59 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:34:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:34:11 <Curt> satya: agreed, there are semantic web constraints
15:34:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful
15:35:00 <Curt> ... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation
15:35:32 <Curt> paolo: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check
15:35:35 <pgroth> q?
15:35:39 <pgroth> ack GK
15:35:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack
15:35:40 <stain> and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about
15:35:47 <Zakim> +??P6
15:35:48 <dgarijo> @khalid: I think you're right
15:36:38 <Curt> GK: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack?
15:36:39 <pgroth> q?
15:37:03 <Luc> as the ONLY stack supported?
15:37:11 <Curt> pgroth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2
15:37:28 <Curt> satya: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together
15:37:59 <Curt> pgroth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies
15:38:12 <GK> @Luc:  as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others.
15:38:22 <satya> @GK +!
15:38:24 <satya> +1
15:38:35 <Curt> ... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies
15:38:36 <Luc> from charter:
15:38:38 <Luc> The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today.  
15:39:05 <Curt> paolo: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern
15:39:12 <satya> q+
15:39:14 <tlebo> btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value.
15:39:18 <pgroth> ack satya
15:39:32 <Curt> satya: ideally we should just support semantic web
15:39:48 <Curt> ... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things
15:39:57 <Luc> why do we have a conceptual model then?
15:39:59 <Curt> ... we should keep that in mind
15:40:10 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:40:14 <tlebo> @luc, regarding "just RDF"?
15:40:20 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:40:24 <pgroth> q?
15:40:39 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies
15:40:59 <pgroth> q?
15:41:03 <Curt> ... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies
15:41:12 <Luc> thanks khalid
15:41:28 <Curt> pgroth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints
15:41:50 <GK> @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too)
15:41:53 <Curt> ... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break
15:41:53 <Paolo> q+
15:41:59 <stain> but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost
15:41:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:42:13 <Curt> paolo: modeling of roles still needs work
15:42:30 <Curt> ... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me
15:42:56 <Curt> ... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications 
15:42:59 <pgroth> q?
15:42:59 <GK> @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF
15:42:59 <Luc> if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology?
15:43:33 <satya> @GK +1
15:43:38 <Curt> pgroth: we need to see where things are hard to represent
15:43:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK +1
15:44:02 <Curt> ... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode
15:44:12 <Zakim> +stain
15:44:20 <Curt> paolo: it is an ongoing process, 
15:44:24 <pgroth> q?
15:44:25 <Zakim> -stain
15:44:49 <pgroth> q?
15:44:53 <Curt> satya: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group
15:44:54 <Luc> q+
15:45:15 <Curt> Luc: how do we progress?
15:45:35 <Curt> pgroth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model
15:45:38 <Luc> proposal: park roles for now, and move on
15:45:57 <Curt> ... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that
15:45:57 <pgroth> q?
15:46:03 <Luc> ack
15:46:05 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:46:33 <Curt> satya: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy
15:46:51 <Curt> ... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model
15:46:58 <Luc> why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'?
15:47:00 <GK> @satya: +1
15:47:01 <Curt> ... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model
15:47:09 <Curt> ... iterative feedback to make them match
15:47:29 <Curt> satya: roles is one issues, there are others
15:47:51 <Curt> satya: e.g. versioning perspectives
15:47:52 <GK> q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier
15:48:07 <Zakim> +??P5
15:48:09 <Luc> saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document
15:48:12 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me
15:48:12 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:48:17 <pgroth> ack GK
15:48:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier
15:48:42 <Curt> GK: difficulty is in coming to understanding.  latest version of the model has helped clarify some things
15:48:48 <satya> sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis
15:48:57 <Curt> ... recent direction has helped discussion progress
15:49:00 <khalidbelhajjame> GK: I agree, the last version is much clearer
15:49:21 <dgarijo> I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion.
15:49:26 <Curt> pgroth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them
15:49:39 <pgroth> Topic: Conceptual Model
<Curt> Summary: New iteration release for discussion.  Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately. 
15:49:49 <satya> @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :)
15:49:51 <Curt> paolo: New iteration released for discussion
15:49:58 <Curt> paolo: few comments so far.  
15:50:09 <Curt> ... that version has many improvements that address issues
15:50:15 <dgarijo> @Satya :)
15:50:19 <Curt> ... several things resolved pending review
15:50:45 <Curt> ... addressing Khalid's comments
15:50:53 <Curt> ... process is converging
15:51:11 <Curt> ... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon
15:51:20 <Curt> ... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things
15:51:34 <Curt> ... planning to address remaining issues
15:51:35 <GK> +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :)
15:52:08 <Curt> ... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others
15:52:09 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.
15:52:23 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.
15:52:26 <satya> @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report?
15:52:33 <Curt> ... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can
15:52:34 <pgroth> q?
15:52:49 <Curt> ... issue 89, 99 need work
15:52:54 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:53:01 <GK> Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss
15:53:11 <pgroth> q?
15:53:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft?
15:53:47 <Curt> Luc: Yes, correct
15:54:12 <Curt> Luc: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release
15:54:13 <GK> q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus
15:54:23 <Curt> pgroth: please raise major blocks asap
15:54:40 <Curt> GK: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open
15:54:47 <satya> @GK - I agree
15:54:51 <Curt> pgroth: correct
15:54:53 <sandro> agreed.    wd does not need to be consensus.
15:54:55 <Luc> i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed
15:55:18 <sandro> but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue.
15:55:20 <Curt> pgroth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers, 
15:55:27 <Curt> ... prior to release to public, raise them now
15:55:55 <Curt> GK: are we ready to release and ask for public comment. 
15:56:08 <Curt> paolo: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of?
15:56:33 <Curt> paolo: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags
15:56:55 <Luc> @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on?
15:56:56 <GK> I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :)
15:57:10 <pgroth> Topic: Formal Model
<Curt> Summary: New release addressing many issues, some more remain.  It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example.
15:57:13 <GK> @luc I'll try
15:57:32 <Luc> @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow
15:57:38 <Curt> satya: formal model has been updated with help 
15:57:58 <Curt> ... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped
15:58:11 <Curt> ... pre-release to this group soon
15:58:39 <Curt> ... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful
15:58:57 <Curt> ... scientific workflow extension to be included
15:59:08 <Zakim> -Luc
15:59:25 <Curt> ... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model
15:59:35 <Curt> ... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model
16:00:01 <Curt> ... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model
16:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model
16:00:13 <Curt> ... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes
16:00:17 <Curt> ... iterative process
16:00:27 <Paolo> Q?
16:00:29 <GK> q-
16:00:34 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:00:34 <Zakim> khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model
16:00:48 <JimMcCusker> @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that.
16:00:52 <pgroth> q?
16:00:57 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset?
16:01:18 <satya> @Jim - thanks
16:01:22 <Curt> pgroth: a correct set is more important than to be complete
16:01:32 <pgroth> q?
16:01:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, thanks
16:01:35 <satya> @Paul: thanks
16:01:38 <pgroth> q?
16:01:43 <dgarijo> @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model.
16:02:03 <satya> @Daniel: no
16:02:07 <Curt> pgroth: please get comments on everything in
16:02:12 <Curt> ... need to vote on public releases
16:02:13 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:02:15 <Zakim> -smiles
16:02:16 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:02:18 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:24 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:02:26 <Zakim> -stain
16:02:26 <jorn> jorn has left #prov
16:02:28 <Zakim> -JimMyers
16:02:30 <Zakim> -jorn
16:02:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:02:42 <Zakim> -??P6
16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:48 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items