Chatlog 2011-10-20

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.

14:53:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:53:42 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:53:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:53:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:53:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:53:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:47 <trackbot> Date: 20 October 2011
14:53:55 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:53:56 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
14:54:11 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:54:15 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:22 <pgroth> Scribe: Stephen Cresswell
14:54:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:01 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:55:02 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
14:55:07 <pgroth> Regrets: Paolo Missier, Reza B'Far, Ryan Golden
14:55:30 <tlbo> tlbo has joined #prov
14:55:32 <StephenC> StephenC has joined #prov
14:55:44 <GK> GK has joined #prov
14:55:48 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:55:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:55:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
14:55:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:56:04 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:56:09 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
14:56:10 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:56:26 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:56:32 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:56:50 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:06 <pgroth> hey graham, just out of curiosity why do you also have two irc names?
14:57:37 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:57:51 <GK1> @paul I'm using two machines .. let's me track the IRC while digging around for dicuments, etc. :)
14:58:03 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
14:58:04 <pgroth> cool :-)
14:58:45 <Zakim> +??P10
14:59:06 <GK> zakim, ??P10 is me
14:59:07 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:59:11 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:59:56 <stain> hi, guys
14:59:57 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:00:09 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:00:41 <kai> kai has joined #prov
15:00:56 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
15:01:09 <GK> Hi Stian
15:01:10 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is tlebo
15:01:10 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:01:20 <Zakim> +??P26
15:01:22 <Zakim> +stain
15:01:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:32 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:01:32 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:01:35 <stain> note to self: always pause between the seven keys
15:01:35 <kai> zakim, +??P26 is probably me.
15:01:37 <Zakim> sorry, kai, I do not understand your question
15:01:42 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:01:43 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: stain (21%)
15:01:43 <kai> zakim, ??P26 is probably me.
15:01:43 <Zakim> +kai?; got it
15:01:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:51 <jcheney> zakim, [IPCaller] is ne
15:01:51 <Zakim> +ne; got it
15:01:56 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
15:02:09 <Zakim> +??P29
15:02:15 <stain> @kai does "probably" allow others to override..?
15:02:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:23 <kai> probably ;-)
15:02:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:02:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:02:48 <kai> Only zakim knows
15:02:55 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aabb
15:03:03 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<StephenCresswell> summary: The minutes of last meeting were approved.  The only open action is dealt with under agenda item 5.  Volunteers are needed to scribe.
15:03:03 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:03:08 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Oct 13 telecon
15:03:13 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:03:13 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:03:13 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:03:14 <pgroth>
15:03:16 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:03:17 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:03:25 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:26 <Curt> +1
15:03:26 <kai> +1
15:03:27 <tlebo> 0 (did not attend)
15:03:27 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:03:33 <Zakim> +??P35
15:03:34 <jcheney> 0 (dna)
15:03:41 <stain> 0 (not read them yet)
15:03:48 <YolandaGil> 0
15:03:55 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:03:55 <edoardo> edoardo has joined #prov
15:04:00 <pgroth> ACCEPTED Minutes from last week
15:04:01 <Zakim> +??P37
15:04:02 <GK> 0 (not present)
15:04:11 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:04:20 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: reviewing action items
15:04:44 <pgroth>
15:04:52 <StephenCresswell> ... Satya's action item on all items from data model in ontology .. we'll come back to it
15:05:05 <StephenCresswell> ... scribes needed ...
15:05:05 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM FPWD
<StephenCresswell> summary: The document has been published.  There is also a blog post by Ivan Herman.  The WG is encouraged to spread the word to other communities, to blog, to tweet (#provwg), and to elicit comments to  Initial feedback is that it is too complex.  Although the material may be inherently complex, there were suggestions that the document could be easier to understand if it presents the most commonly-used core material first, and to make some comparison with existing models such as OPM.  It was also suggested that more realistic examples should be used instead of ones that seem contrived, and that showing its representation in RDF would help.
15:05:22 <pgroth>
15:05:26 <dgarijo> Khalid sends regrets
15:05:28 <StephenCresswell> ... there's a blog post from Ivan
15:05:35 <pgroth>
15:05:47 <StephenCresswell> ... is the official link to use
15:05:52 <pgroth> Twitter hashtag: #provwg
15:06:17 <StephenCresswell> ... we want to encourage people to talk about on their blogs etc.
15:06:23 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:06:30 <StephenCresswell> ... to get multiple perspectives
15:06:40 <pgroth> +q
15:06:43 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:06:45 <pgroth> q?
15:06:49 <dgarijo> +q
15:06:51 <StephenCresswell> +q
15:07:10 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
15:07:12 <satya> @Paul: Was there a question for me? Sorry I joined a bit late
15:07:18 <pgroth> no satya
15:07:33 <StephenCresswell> dgarijo: comments said that model was a bit complex, how are we going to make it more simple
15:07:44 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: a number of ways
15:07:46 <pgroth> ack StephenCresswell 
15:07:47 <GK> q+ to note it may be the /presentation/ is seen as complex
15:08:22 <GK> The comment address should be in the draft
15:08:35 <dgarijo> maybe more examples? The comments also wanted to see the RDF serialization (prov-o).
15:08:36 <Luc> they can subscribe to the mailing list
15:08:38 <StephenCresswell> where should the comments go?
15:08:48 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: to the mailing list
15:08:56 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
15:08:59 <Luc> instructions are at the beginning of document
15:09:13 <StephenCresswell> GK: Do they normally have a separate mailing list?
15:09:17 <GK> Doc requests comments to
15:09:18 <Luc> ... it's standard text from w3c
15:09:32 <paolo> paolo has joined #prov
15:09:55 <Luc> q+
15:09:55 <pgroth> q?
15:09:57 <pgroth> ack GK
15:09:57 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note it may be the /presentation/ is seen as complex
15:10:03 <satya> @GK: agree
15:10:05 <stain> @GK +1
15:10:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:10:18 <StephenCresswell> GK: It may be not the model that is complex, or is it just the presentation of the model that is complex?
15:10:27 <jcheney> +q
15:10:32 <dgarijo> @GK yes, maybe I didn't express myself correctly, sorry.
15:10:44 <stain> no,  not publiclally subscribable. I was redirected to password-protected
15:10:46 <vinh> vinh has joined #prov
15:10:59 <StephenCresswell> Luc: We have to explore presentation first, and then maybe think about why the model is complex, but maybe it needs to be complex
15:11:15 <Zakim> +??P12
15:11:26 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:11:28 <paolo> zakim, ??p12 is me
15:11:28 <Zakim> +paolo; got it
15:11:31 <StephenCresswell> ... thinking about starting the data model with the most common relations
15:11:37 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P12 (11%), ne (94%)
15:11:37 <satya> @Luc: +1 we should concentrate on presentation but not try to modify the model itself to make it more readable
15:12:01 <stain> @GK just needs some bass
15:12:02 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:12:07 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:12:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P3, pgroth, Luc, Yogesh_Simmhan, GK, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, kai?, stain, ne, [ISI], ??P29, dgarijo, +1.518.633.aabb, MacTed (muted), ??P35, ??P37, Satya_Sahoo,
15:12:10 <Zakim> ... paolo
15:12:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see dcorsar, vinh, paolo, Lena, Christine, edoardo, Yogesh, YolandaGil, zednik, kai, jcheney, dgarijo, Curt, StephenCresswell, satya, Luc, tlebo, GK, GK1, Zakim, RRSAgent,
15:12:13 <Zakim> ... pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:12:34 <stain> > This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to
15:12:40 <paolo> +1 for a two-tier dissemination strategy
15:12:43 <stain> > Your message has NOT been distributed to the list
15:12:47 <paolo> q+
15:12:49 <stain> so it does not work to email from the outside either
15:12:50 <StephenCresswell> jcheney: Paolo was giving view of this at conference, he said it may be good idea to start with a subset of ideas that are familiar through OPM etc.
15:12:50 <StephenCresswell> ... (gone quiet)
15:12:52 <GK> q+ to say that I've been taking a shot at entioty/resource stuff
15:12:56 <pgroth> q?
15:13:01 <pgroth> ack jcheney
15:13:05 <StephenCresswell> ... (I didn't hear anything)
15:13:05 <pgroth> ack paolo
15:13:40 <stain> ah, I just need to say it's allowed in the publication.. then it should be fine to post for outsiders, yes
15:13:45 <StephenCresswell> Paolo: Make distinction between core concepts and newer things
15:14:09 <pgroth> q+
15:14:19 <StephenCresswell> ... people ask how it is different from OPM ... make distinction between top tier and second tier
15:14:23 <pgroth> ack GK
15:14:23 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I've been taking a shot at entioty/resource stuff
15:14:27 <YolandaGil> +1
15:14:33 <YolandaGil> q+
15:14:40 <pgroth> q-
15:14:46 <pgroth> q+
15:14:55 <StephenCresswell> GK: I've been starting to draft something about the issue of relationship between resources and entities, from developer perspective,
15:15:08 <StephenCresswell> ... intend to contribute
15:15:09 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil 
15:15:47 <tlebo> FROM @MacTed ASK WHERE { [ foaf:nick "Tall Ted" ] foaf:holdsAccount [ foaf:accountName "MacTed" ] } . }
15:15:48 <StephenCresswell> Yolanda: Was trying extract core ideas to write primer document.
15:15:52 <paolo> q?
15:15:57 <StephenCresswell> ... some of the examples are hard to relate to 
15:16:38 <GK> Slightly related to this discussion:
15:16:44 <GK> Yolanda +1
15:16:45 <StephenCresswell> ... some of the the definitions , or how terms are used elsewhere in document, are confusing
15:17:12 <stain> @YolandaGil +1
15:17:26 <tlebo> +1 to stop making contrived examples when there are many real examples to handle
15:17:29 <satya> @Yolanda +1
15:17:39 <StephenCresswell> ... may less contrived, more natural examples, more like the way we would use provenance, would help
15:17:53 <tlebo> attempt of a list
15:17:54 <dgarijo> @Yolanda +1
15:17:55 <pgroth> q?
15:18:10 <StephenCresswell> ... perhaps end-to-end example using linked data
15:18:46 <StephenCresswell> pgroth:  Would help to get a reflection of the data model in RDF would help
15:19:00 <GK> @pgroth: +1 helps to see examples in RDF, but these can still look complicated
15:19:18 <StephenCresswell> ... we should look at smaller things to help people understand what the data model says
15:19:20 <satya> @Paul +1 and maybe with an intuitive example will help
15:19:24 <satya> q+
15:19:28 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:19:37 <StephenCresswell> ... it's nice to have the RDF as well as abstract syntax
15:20:05 <dgarijo> we have some examples in RDF in the ontology document.
15:20:11 <pgroth> q+
15:20:16 <tlebo> RDF/XML :-(
15:20:17 <StephenCresswell> satya: linked data, bioinformatics, sensor data, has lots of examples 
15:20:39 <pgroth> q?
15:20:41 <StephenCresswell> ... maybe better than filesystem examples
15:20:43 <pgroth> ack satya
15:20:45 <satya> q-
15:21:16 <StephenCresswell> pgroth:  We have the example that we all agreed on previously ... data journalism example
15:21:16 <satya> @Paul: I guess I am saying a non-computer science example may help?
15:21:21 <Luc> we have always said this example was a placeholder ... if someone has a better one, than let's use it. The data journalism is too long for prov-dm document.
15:21:25 <GK> +1 (need examples that demonstrate simple ideas)
15:21:51 <pgroth> q?
15:21:53 <StephenCresswell> ... concentrate on some simple things that everyone would need to say  e.g. authorship, quote relation
15:21:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:22:17 <pgroth> Topic: Connection Task Force
<StephenCresswell> summary:  Kai reported on the recent Connection TF telcon, discussing what the future role of the TF would be.  The proposal is firstly to collect mailing lists of interested communities, and secondly to reach out to specific groups through organising joint telcons involving appropriate WG members.  It was agreed that this approach would help towards the Best Practice Cookbook deliverable from the charter, and that it would be preferable to begin that activity when friendlier documents have been produced - which would be around January 2012. 
15:22:22 <tlebo> +=
15:22:22 <satya> We can revisit some of the example scenarios from the PROV XG also
15:22:41 <tlebo> @satya, pointer to XG's list?
15:22:47 <dgarijo> @satya: well, the first one wasn't the data journalism example?
15:22:48 <StephenCresswell> kai: We have telecon discussing what we will do with connection TF, 
15:22:54 <pgroth> q?
15:23:01 <StephenCresswell> ... so far we have informal rep ... more or less finished
15:23:09 <StephenCresswell> ... it should be a living document
15:23:09 <Zakim> +??P2
15:23:21 <StephenCresswell> ... eric and kai will be a contact 
15:23:34 <StephenCresswell> ... What will we do next?
15:23:45 <dgarijo> @tlebo:
15:23:53 <StephenCresswell> ... one thing is to identify mailing lists
15:23:55 <tlebo> thx
15:24:15 <StephenCresswell> ... we don't want to be seen as the people who actually communicate with all these connections 
15:24:24 <satya> @Daniel: agree but maybe we should avoid CS jargon - since many of our targeted users are non-CS
15:24:29 <StephenCresswell> ... it would just add another step to communications
15:24:45 <StephenCresswell> ... We brainstormed on what else we could provide
15:24:51 <dgarijo> @tlebo: 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are the 3 3 scenario.
15:25:05 <StephenCresswell> ... We thought about organising additional telecons
15:25:25 <StephenCresswell> ... we other groups, e.g. creative commons
15:25:31 <pgroth> q?
15:25:41 <StephenCresswell> ... What does the group think?
15:25:44 <dgarijo> @Satya: what does CS mean?
15:25:55 <satya> @Tim:
15:25:58 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: Still a lot to do in engaging with other groups
15:26:13 <satya> @daniel: computer science
15:26:14 <Luc> q+ to mention the best practice deliverable
15:26:21 <StephenCresswell> ... e.g. kai involved with DC group
15:26:26 <dgarijo> @satya: thx!
15:26:27 <pgroth> q?
15:26:47 <StephenCresswell> Luc: In charter we have Best Practive deliverable
15:27:38 <StephenCresswell> ... would involve technical work on how integrate e.g. creative commons work
15:27:42 <YolandaGil> +q
15:27:45 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:27:45 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to mention the best practice deliverable
15:28:05 <StephenCresswell> kai: That's sort of thing what we might discuss on new telcons
15:28:39 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil 
15:28:52 <StephenCresswell> kai: What can be our role where we are not bridge persons?
15:28:56 <Zakim> -stain
15:29:15 <Zakim> +stain
15:29:23 <paolo> have to leave, apologies
15:29:42 <Zakim> -paolo
15:29:44 <StephenCresswell> yolanda: There are not many people on connection TF, and it is too daunting to look at technical integration at all these areas ourselves
15:30:08 <StephenCresswell> ... we need to set up discussions in these separate areas
15:30:26 <pgroth> q?
15:31:00 <StephenCresswell> ... telcons would be vehicle to get more people participating, and the outcome from calls would move us towards best practice deliverables 
15:31:20 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: seems like a good way forwards
15:32:12 <StephenCresswell> yolanda: Maybe people will be scared off by prov-dm document, and maybe we should hold off until we have more accessible documents
15:32:33 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: seems reasonable to wait for primer etc.
15:32:40 <pgroth> q?
15:32:53 <Luc> we should use the w3c teleconference system for those calls, and we need to book them ahead
15:33:05 <Luc> +1 for January
15:33:14 <StephenCresswell> yolanda: maybe we can schedule for later ... e.g. December, January
15:33:24 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
<StephenCresswell> summary: Tim reported on the RDF-WG F2F meeting.  The WG has now resolved to make a distinction between the concepts RDF graph, graph container, and graph serialisation.  This is helpful for us, but has led to a mismatch with the work of the SPARQL-WG.  More interaction between the three WGs is required to ensure that the distinction is established and maintained.  See Tim's explanation on wiki for details.  The use of named graphs for accounts depends on this issue.
15:33:33 <StephenCresswell> pgroth:  January seems best.
15:33:45 <tlebo> : one good (3 terms), two bad (conflating GraphContainer and Graph; sd:name doesn't identify), one opportunity (reconciling SPARQL-WG, RDF-WG, PROV-WG) 
15:34:26 <StephenCresswell> tlebo: Some feedback on F2F (named graphs)
15:34:42 <StephenCresswell> ... they have resolved to distinguish
15:34:51 <StephenCresswell> graph containers and graph serialisations
15:34:58 <tlebo>
15:35:30 <StephenCresswell> ... the clear distinction will help proposal
15:35:51 <StephenCresswell> ... they have some problem with the SPARQL WG
15:36:20 <StephenCresswell> ... vocabularies used to identify graph doesn't identify graph container
15:36:30 <StephenCresswell> ... needs to be solved in SPARQL WG
15:36:36 <pgroth> q?
15:37:03 <StephenCresswell> pgroth:  Any impression on whether we just have to wait?
15:37:16 <StephenCresswell> tlebo: We need to be more proactive than that
15:37:43 <satya> @Tim: thanks! The distinction between g-snap and g-box seems to be special importance to this WG
15:37:47 <satya> @tim: agree
15:37:50 <pgroth> q?
15:37:54 <StephenCresswell> ... we need to interact more to make sure the clear distinction is established and maintained
15:38:29 <StephenCresswell> GK: Concerned that we become dependent on what SPARQL WG say
15:39:19 <StephenCresswell> tlebo: Problem is that they have established RDF vocab to talk about endpoints, graphs etc., and they fail to make distinction
15:39:19 <Luc> there was a suggestion by Sandro to express the data journalism example, and trying to use some form of name graph, and learn from that
15:39:37 <StephenCresswell> GK:  Their problem or ours?
15:39:48 <pgroth> q?
15:40:10 <AndroUser> AndroUser has joined #prov
15:40:11 <StephenCresswell> tlebo: Ours.  They could continue to ignore it and they would meet their aims.
15:40:26 <pgroth> q?
15:40:39 <pgroth> Topic: Update PROV-O
<StephenCresswell> summary: The status of the PROV-O document was discussed. The general consensus was that the document is ready for release if it contains all of the core concepts of the PROV-DM.  It does not have to express all of the constraints at this stage.  It should include some explanation of mapping of PROV-DM concepts, and some example of times associated with process executions.
15:40:47 <StephenCresswell> tlebo:  Discussion on named graphs for accounts is stalled by these problems.
15:41:00 <dgarijo> hmm, if we cannot use named graphs as accounts then we will have to include "accounts" on the ontology.
15:41:10 <dgarijo> once again.
15:41:32 <StephenCresswell> satya:  Luc joined ontology call and had suggestions before release of documents.
15:41:48 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aacc
15:41:50 <pgroth> q?
15:41:57 <Luc> q+
15:41:58 <GK> q+ top suggest an approach to simplifyingpresentation of the D<M might be via the ontology
15:42:05 <pgroth> q?
15:42:12 <StephenCresswell> ... on data model, it might make sense to withhold prov-o until readablity of dm doc is improved
15:42:24 <stain> @Luc +1 - let's do an agile first version
15:42:33 <stain> with lots of bugs :)
15:42:37 <pgroth> q?
15:42:38 <GK> q+ to suggest an approach to simplifying presentation of the DM might be via the ontology
15:42:41 <StephenCresswell> Luc: Would be worried to delay prov-o document, we need serialisation, for primer etc.
15:42:52 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:43:12 <StephenCresswell> satya:  we can go ahead and release
15:43:18 <pgroth> q+
15:43:30 <jcheney> +q
15:43:31 <tlebo> PROV-O is not the RDF serialization?
15:43:33 <pgroth> ack GK
15:43:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest an approach to simplifying presentation of the DM might be via the ontology
15:43:37 <StephenCresswell> clarify,  prov-o is not the RDF serialisation
15:44:24 <tlebo> so, PROV-O is RDF serialization + axioms?
15:44:31 <StephenCresswell> GK:  Maybe leave data model as it is, but look at ways through ontology and RDF representation, to make the simple things easy to say.
15:44:58 <pgroth> q?
15:45:08 <StephenCresswell> satya: Agree.  Think we have covered the mapping of all the terms in data model.
15:45:29 <dgarijo> @GK: Paul already proposed some shortcut fucntions
15:45:46 <Luc> q+
15:46:10 <StephenCresswell> GK: Shortcuts  may provide a less scary way to present examples
15:46:12 <stain>  
15:46:20 <dgarijo>
15:46:50 <StephenCresswell> satya:  Are we considering these things to be part of core data model or as extensions?  
15:46:54 <GK> My point was that the ontology could contain things not in the data model, or easier structures to represent DM structures
15:47:04 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:47:05 <stain> q+
15:47:07 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: I consider them part of the core
15:47:19 <GK> .. i.e. not necessarily 1:1 correspondence between DM and O
15:47:35 <pgroth> q+
15:47:55 <StephenCresswell> jcheney: Data model uses abstract syntax, ontology uses RDF, but describes constraints and specialisations 
15:48:06 <GK> I think the ontology effectively *does* define RDGF serialization
15:48:13 <pgroth> the RDF falls out of the Ontology
15:48:27 <stain> but not with any constraints of formats or implicit/explicit etc.
15:48:28 <StephenCresswell> ... but doesn't describe mapping to ontology
15:48:38 <stain> I assume PAQ should come with some minimum serialisation expectations
15:48:48 <GK> @pgroth yes that's what I meant to say :)
15:49:00 <stain> so you could use PROV-O in Manchester Syntax if you like, but don't expect too many applications to understand it
15:49:01 <MacTed> I don't understand "RDF serialization" nor "XML serialization" in this context. "RDF/XML serialization", yes.  or Turtle, N-Triples, etc.
15:49:09 <StephenCresswell> satya:  We tried to model DM classes and provide definitions.  What is mssing?
15:49:26 <pgroth> zakim, who is noisy?
15:49:33 <stain> XML serialisation CAN be a (restricted) RDF/XML serialisation
15:49:37 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: GK (28%), ne (23%), Satya_Sahoo (4%)
15:49:39 <GK> ACtually it's 2-stage:  model -> abstract RDDF (ontology does that), then given that RDF-syntax gives RDF/XML.
15:50:26 <StephenCresswell> jcheney:  There's a deliverable about serialisation, is that intended to be serialisation of the of the ontology, or the mapping from the DM to the ontology?
15:50:41 <pgroth> q?
15:50:44 <pgroth> ack jcheney
15:50:46 <StephenCresswell> satya:  We will add some text on that.
15:51:05 <StephenCresswell> Luc:  On issue of time, there don't seem to be any time examples
15:51:16 <dgarijo> we talked about reusing some time ontologies.
15:51:28 <StephenCresswell> ... e.g. workflow example, can we have time in there?
15:51:33 <pgroth> q?
15:51:41 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:51:42 <StephenCresswell> satya: We will add e.g. start and stop time of processes.
15:51:46 <dgarijo> like :
15:52:18 <tlebo> illustration of owl time:
15:52:39 <stain> I mean
15:52:53 <stain> if you are required to understand the extensions if you are "PROV-DM compliant"
15:53:11 <StephenCresswell> stain: Prov-DM extensions, are those something that we are required to understand?
15:53:16 <stain> or if it is optional, so that although PROV-O should have these terms, you don't need to understand it to be PROV-O compliant
15:53:29 <StephenCresswell> Luc: they are part of the data model
15:53:49 <dgarijo> @Satya: entities?
15:53:59 <pgroth> q?
15:54:00 <StephenCresswell> satya:  What are the domain and range of the relations?
15:54:13 <pgroth> ack stain
15:54:13 <GK> ?
15:54:21 <StephenCresswell> Luc: entities
15:54:22 <pgroth> q-
15:54:23 <pgroth> q?
15:55:08 <StephenCresswell> pgroth: It would be good to reflect everything in the DM into the ontology
15:55:22 <StephenCresswell> ... not necessarily all the contraints
15:55:26 <pgroth> q?
15:55:28 <tlebo> RDF examples for each construct are in the repository:
15:55:41 <tlebo> not complete, not correct, but there :-)
15:55:42 <GK> +1 need the vocabulary soonest, not nessecarily constraints
15:55:51 <StephenCresswell> satya: Primary aim should be to get all the terms modelled, 
15:56:13 <StephenCresswell> ... but if you don't define all the domain, range etc.
15:56:28 <StephenCresswell> ... people have problems creating the RDF
15:56:43 <GK> +1 domain and range are helpful for generating RDF
15:57:14 <StephenCresswell> pgroth:  Domain and range are mostly there anyway, the hierachies are not so important at this stage.
15:58:01 <pgroth> q?
15:58:02 <StephenCresswell> satya:  Agree, but OWL community won't like it.
15:58:18 <stain> example of XSD which happen to produce RDF/XML: produces
15:58:23 <pgroth> Topic: Discussion on Entity Attributes
<StephenCresswell> summary: Graham reported that he and Jim Myers have reached consensus that having attributes as part of characterisation is worthwhile because it aids interoperability, and that it is not necessary to distinguish characterising and non-characterising attributes.  It will be necessary to update document with this.
15:58:33 <stain> .. but you get strange double-nesting due to the property-class nature of RDF/XML
15:58:35 <GK>
15:58:54 <Zakim> -tlebo
15:58:57 <StephenCresswell> GK: Link is to one of most recent messages,
15:59:11 <StephenCresswell> ... discussion between GK and Jim has converged
15:59:15 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:59:24 <StephenCresswell> ... to having attributes as part of characterisation
15:59:46 <StephenCresswell> ... to aid interoperability
16:00:16 <pgroth> q?
16:00:25 <StephenCresswell> ... Also agreed we don't have to distinguish between characterising and non-characterising attributes
16:00:33 <tlebo> I haven't read the most recent emails on this, but the last time we talked about this, "characterizing attributes" were trying to reinvent owl.
16:00:33 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
16:00:54 <Luc> q+ to ask if you still consider that attributes still have a given value for some interval
16:00:58 <satya> @tim: +1
16:00:58 <tlebo> (sorry, call also dropped)
16:01:13 <stain> should we do a proposal and vote?
16:01:39 <StephenCresswell> Luc: Didn't mention whether a given attr has fixed value for some interval
16:01:43 <satya> q+
16:01:53 <tlebo> all attributes are fixed in an entity, no?
16:02:10 <StephenCresswell> GK: Any attr for entity is fixed for entity in what interval that entity exists.
16:02:26 <Zakim> -[ISI]
16:02:31 <StephenCresswell> GK: Argument for interop came from jim.
16:02:32 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:02:32 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to ask if you still consider that attributes still have a given value for some interval
16:02:33 <dgarijo> gotta go, sry.
16:02:43 <Zakim> -??P35
16:03:03 <StephenCresswell> ... looking at provenance challenge, the attrs were introduced to enable conversion of information between different formats
16:03:08 <Zakim> -kai
16:03:10 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:03:19 <kai> sorry, have to leave timely
16:03:37 <tlebo> what is the brewing proposal we may vote on?
16:03:40 <StephenCresswell> ... the approach I was suggested could be seen as a dual to that 
16:04:06 <StephenCresswell> Luc:  We will try to get that articulated so we can make the case in the doc.
16:04:28 <StephenCresswell> ... are there aspects of the document which conflict with what you agreed with Jim?
16:04:49 <StephenCresswell> GK:  Will clarify this.
16:04:53 <pgroth> q?
16:05:09 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:05:39 <StephenCresswell> satya: What GK said is exactly what frames and slots do, and that carries over to OWL.
16:05:49 <tlebo> just as PROV is avoiding the Time and Location discussions, it should also avoid being a schema language.
16:06:18 <pgroth> q?
16:06:42 <StephenCresswell> satya:  To make it clear, it would help you don't explicitly carry around attributes of entity to be able to define it properly, that is done by typing information
16:06:48 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:06:49 <Zakim> -stain
16:06:52 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:06:53 <Zakim> -??P37
16:06:56 <Zakim> -Luc
16:06:57 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:06:57 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:07:03 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:07:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:07:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:07:11 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:07:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:07:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, Yogesh_Simmhan, GK, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, stain, [ISI], kai?, ne, dgarijo, +1.518.633.aabb, MacTed,
16:07:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:07:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:07:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:07:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:07:15 <Zakim> ... Satya_Sahoo, paolo, +1.509.375.aacc