Chatlog 2011-11-03

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.

14:50:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:01 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:50:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:50:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:05 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:50:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:06 <trackbot> Date: 03 November 2011
14:50:15 <Luc> Agenda:
14:50:23 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:50:35 <Luc> Scribe: Graham Klyne
14:50:41 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:50:51 <Luc> Graham, everything should be set up for you
14:52:49 <GK> OK, thanks.
14:53:07 <Luc> thanks for volunteering
14:53:34 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:41 <Zakim> +??P36
14:53:53 <GK> zakim, ??p36 is me
14:53:53 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:54:14 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:56:43 <Luc> Topic: Admin 
<luc> Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.
14:57:22 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:57:41 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:57 <Zakim> +??P16
14:58:03 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:58:06 <Paolo> zakim. ??P16 is me
14:58:13 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:58:16 <Paolo> zakim,??P16 is me
14:58:16 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:58:25 <Zakim> +Yolanda
14:58:45 <Zakim> +tlebo
14:59:05 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:59:08 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
14:59:10 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:59:33 <Luc> @sandro, did you see my message about not being able to create a poll?
15:00:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:33 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:00:33 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:00:39 <vinh> vinh has joined #prov
15:00:44 <Zakim> +??P27
15:00:47 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:59 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:59 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:01:01 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:01 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:19 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:01:29 <GK> Luc: intro - see agenda
15:01:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:40 <GK> ...
15:01:46 <Luc> Proposed: to accept minutes of last week's teleconference  
15:01:54 <GK> ... no AOB for agenda
15:02:04 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see GK, Luc, Paolo, Yolanda, tlebo, Sandro, Yogesh_Simmhan, pgroth, ??P27, MacTed (muted), [IPcaller]
15:02:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, vinh, StephenCresswell, Yogesh, tlebo, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, GK, GK1, MacTed, trackbot, sandro, stain
15:02:10 <smiles> +1
15:02:14 <Yogesh> +1
15:02:17 <GK> 0 (not present)
15:02:17 <Paolo> (missed it)
15:02:24 <Paolo> 0 (not present)
15:03:04 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:08 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference 
15:03:17 <Zakim> +??P5
15:03:19 <Luc> Topic: F2F2 and F2F3 
<luc>Summary: Proposed dates for F2F2 are Jan 23-24 or Feb 2-3, in Amsterdam or Southampton; a poll is going to be set up shortly.  Proposed dates for F2F3 are Jun 22-23 (Santa Barbara) or Boston (July 2 to 6).  The objectives (and necessary inputs) for F2F2 were discussed and approved by the working group. 
15:03:20 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:03:28 <jcheney> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:03:28 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:03:46 <Luc> January 23-24
15:03:52 <Luc> February 2-3
15:03:55 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- -- 2011-11-03 telecon agenda:
15:03:58 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:03:59 <GK> Luc: possible dates for F2F2 - 23, 24 Jan or 2-3 Feb
15:04:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:04:03 <Luc> Proposed locations: Amsterdam (preferably, since more options), Southampton 
15:04:08 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:04:14 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:04:17 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:04:18 <GK> ... will set up a poll for expressing preference
15:04:31 <GK> ... locations Amsterdam or Southampton
15:04:45 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa
15:04:56 <GK> Luc: asks about permissions for setting up poll
15:05:02 <GK> Sandro: should have permissions nowq
15:05:12 <GK> s/nowq/now/
15:05:16 <Luc> June 22-23
15:05:26 <Luc> June 22-23, santa barbara
15:05:39 <Luc> July 2 to 6, Boston
15:05:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:06:13 <Luc> q?
15:06:28 <Luc>
15:06:37 <GK> Luc: Jun dates colocate with IPAW12 -
15:06:43 <Luc>
15:06:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
15:06:56 <GK> Luc: Objectives for F2F2 meeting
15:07:18 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
15:07:18 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:07:21 <GK> ... charter indicates should be at last call for PROV-DM and PROV-O
15:07:40 <GK> ... but don't feel this is realistic for Jan/early Feb
15:08:02 <GK> ... But want to identify what remains to be done to release last calls.
15:08:35 <GK> ... For PAQ, also want to identify what needs to be done to go to last call.
15:08:44 <GK> ... as a NOTE, not REC-track
15:09:48 <GK> PROV-XML (deliverable 5) .. similarly want to identify what id needed.
15:10:36 <GK> Luc: Primer due after M12(?), so identifying roadmap at F2F is goal
15:10:54 <GK> ... similarly for best practice "cookbook"
15:11:08 <pgroth> +q
15:11:19 <GK> ... and call for implementations (?)
15:11:22 <Luc> q?
15:11:51 <GK> Luc: thus... 8 topics is a good fit for 8 sessions at F2F
15:12:08 <GK> ... inputs needed will be:
15:12:14 <GK> ... new version of PROV-DM
15:12:46 <GK> ... released version of PROV-O
15:13:17 <GK> ... second working draft of PAQ, including querying
15:13:29 <GK> ... first version of semantics
15:13:49 <GK> ... first version XML serialization, primer
15:14:04 <GK> ... outline of work plan for deliverable 6 (which is that?)
15:14:38 <GK> pgroth: have question about availability for next F2F in Europe
15:14:49 <smiles> +1 (at least for the Jan dates)
15:14:49 <MacTed> -1
15:14:53 <GK> +0.5 (depends on wife's state of health)
15:14:55 <Yogesh> -1
15:14:55 <Christine> Paul - I joined late. Could you repreat the dates please?
15:15:06 <zednik> -1
15:15:11 <satya> -1
15:15:16 <Paolo> Luc: possible dates for F2F2 - 23, 24 Jan or 2-3 Feb
15:15:16 <dgarijo> +1 ( I think)
15:15:21 <GK> s/(depends on wife's state of health)//
15:15:22 <Christine> +1 Feb
15:15:28 <Paolo> Proposed locations: Amsterdam (preferably, since more options), Southampton
15:15:31 <GK> (that probably shouldn't be minuted)
15:15:39 <Paolo> +1 (so far)
15:16:10 <Yogesh> Will not be able to travel to Europe...Can join by phone
15:16:15 <GK> Luc: those with -1 response: is it dates or location?
15:16:20 <GK> StephanZ: both
15:16:31 <GK> Satya: availability of dates
15:16:41 <Luc> q?
15:16:46 <pgroth> q-
15:17:13 <Luc> q?
15:17:17 <GK> Luc: feedback on objectives for next F2F, and inputs requested?
15:17:28 <smiles> q+
15:17:42 <jcheney> q+
15:17:56 <Luc> ack smiles
15:18:42 <GK> jcheney: semantics means ontology, or separate deliverable.  If separate deliverable, am I the leader?  Need to figure out goals for separate semantics document.
15:19:05 <GK> s/semantics means/does semantics mean/
15:19:32 <Luc> q?
15:19:34 <GK> Luc: asks paul to put agendum in for next week about semantics document
15:19:35 <Luc> ack jch
15:19:54 <dgarijo> yes
15:19:54 <smiles> +1
15:19:55 <satya> +1
15:20:01 <dgarijo> (+1)
15:20:06 <GK> +1
15:20:09 <zednik> +1
15:20:13 <Luc> Proposed: to accept the objectives and inputs for F2F
15:20:16 <Luc> Proposed: to accept the objectives and inputs for F2F2
15:20:17 <Paolo> +1
15:20:28 <jcheney> +1
15:20:35 <Luc> Accepted: the objectives and inputs for F2F2
15:20:54 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O 
<luc>Summary: The prov-o document authors have agreed on an approach to model usage/generation time and qualifiers without a class EntityRole that is a subclass of Entity.  They are in the process of modifying the ontology, the examples and the document.  Final details such as name of properties are going to be discussed by them in a separate call.
15:21:04 <GK> (See
15:21:46 <GK> Satya: report from PROV-O teleconference... alignment of DM and ontology, and other progress
15:21:59 <GK> ... how to model entity roles. Two proposed approaches:
15:22:18 <GK> ... (1) specialize ?? (subproerty of (?) 
15:22:33 <GK> ... (2) use a new class
15:23:12 <GK> ... given complexity of information being modelled.
15:23:44 <GK> ... felt creating n-ary class was more intuitive
15:24:08 <GK> ... explore option of allowing both approaches
15:24:42 <tlebo> my impression from the OWL telecon was that we included both techniques into PROV-O, so neither was excluded.
15:24:51 <GK> ... actions of Luc, Daniel to define appropriate properties for linking the n-ary classes to the appropriate entities
15:24:56 <GK> s.of/on/
15:25:04 <dgarijo> me too! :D
15:25:20 <GK> Luc: wasn't present for action given to me... surprised!
15:25:30 <tlebo> (prov:used to point directly, versus prov:usedUsage points indirectly)
15:25:59 <GK> Satya: we felt you would be in better position as author of OPMO technique
15:26:16 <dgarijo> I thought we were going to use those names already.
15:26:35 <GK> Luc: feels that Tim, Stephan(?) are better placed to choose names.
15:26:50 <tlebo> +1, I can take a stab at the names.
15:26:56 <zednik> I agree with tim and daniel, keep prov:used and prov:hadUsage
15:27:01 <pgroth> +q
15:27:32 <pgroth> q-
15:27:40 <GK> Luc: propose use names from example discussed on Monday, then discuss
15:28:02 <zednik> +1 I am willing to help
15:28:03 <dgarijo> @zednik: I think he is referring to the: entityUsed (or usedCause) properties.
15:28:21 <Luc> q?
15:28:32 <satya>
15:28:42 <GK> ACTION tlebo: propose names to use
15:28:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Propose names to use [on Timothy Lebo - due 2011-11-10].
15:29:31 <dgarijo> sure
15:29:35 <dgarijo> I can help
15:29:51 <Luc> q?
15:30:13 <GK> Satya: in other sections...
15:30:15 <tlebo> Should we shoot to have the names by Monday noon?
15:30:21 <GK> ... improving readability
15:30:47 <GK> ... also keeping doc aligned with PROV-DM
15:31:02 <Luc> @tlebo, as soon as possible, yes
15:31:04 <GK> ... inference rules may change
15:31:19 <GK> ... hopefully in next couple of days
15:31:30 <GK> Luc: action 40 still in progress
15:32:00 <GK> ...
15:32:08 <GK> Satya: work in progress
15:32:11 <Luc> q?
15:32:20 <dgarijo> +q
15:32:44 <pgroth> +q
15:32:57 <GK> q+ to ask about taking on board Ivan's comments about complexity
15:33:34 <GK> Satya: would like to leave examples showing both approaches, 
15:33:35 <tlebo> zeknik's proposal includes the "EntityInRole" approach, no?
15:33:40 <Luc> ack dga
15:33:54 <zednik> @tlebo no
15:33:55 <GK> ??: could be confusing, maybe put examples in another document?
15:34:10 <GK> Satya: will introduce new sections, keep issues separated
15:34:12 <Luc> ack pg
15:34:19 <dgarijo> @Graham: ?? is me
15:34:44 <tlebo> @zednik, s/prov:hadUsage/prov:qualifiedUse/ for the qualified version of prov:used ?
15:34:54 <dgarijo> @Paul: yes, I was wondering exactly about the same thing. If we release 2 approaches, interoperability is going to be an issue!
15:34:56 <GK> pgroth: I think we need to pick one: (1) for interoperability, (2) avoinding confusion, keeping things easy to explain
15:35:03 <tlebo> q+
15:35:07 <tlebo> q-
15:35:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:35:21 <GK> ... two ways of modelling same thing shouldn't happen.
15:35:23 <smiles> @pgroth agreed
15:35:33 <dgarijo> @paul:+1
15:35:36 <tlebo> q+ to say that EntityInRole is part of the new design proposal (it includes it's more direct alternative, too).
15:36:08 <pgroth> +q
15:36:16 <dgarijo> @tlebo: no, entityInRole is the concept we decided to drop on monday.
15:36:33 <dgarijo> @tlebo: and replace it with Usage, Generation, Control.
15:36:58 <Paolo> +q
15:37:12 <GK> satya: commenting on modelling alternatives - given preferebnce for n-ary approach, don't see how this can be avoided.
15:37:23 <tlebo> we're just renaming the same design pattern, and including the ability to state it directly AND indirectly.
15:37:35 <GK> luc: I don't think either approach introduces more instances
15:38:02 <tlebo> +1 GK
15:38:15 <Paolo> @Satya: I tried to make it clear that my comment was not putting one approach against the other  -- it was rather provocatively on the OWL/RDF mapping in general
15:38:17 <dgarijo> @tlebo: what we are doing is stoping EntityInRole from being a subclass of Entity. 
15:38:22 <GK> luc: my objection was to introducing (classes) not in PROV-DM
15:38:42 <Paolo> +q
15:38:55 <pgroth> queue
15:39:12 <Luc> ack GK
15:39:12 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask about taking on board Ivan's comments about complexity
15:39:16 <GK> satya: can you show how extra nodes don't need to be added for OPMO 
15:39:55 <GK> tim: don't see this as a contention, but new design that subsume's.  Can use either direct or indirect approach
15:39:56 <Luc> ack tl
15:39:56 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that EntityInRole is part of the new design proposal (it includes it's more direct alternative, too).
15:40:55 <GK> pgroth: primer people are saying entityinrole is difficult to describe.  We need one way to model.
15:41:04 <GK> ... would like to see this written down
15:41:38 <Luc> ack pg
15:42:20 <GK> satya: I am not clear about several issues relating to the alternative approach
15:42:40 <GK> pgroth: stephan and tim have clear idea about what needs to be done
15:42:49 <zednik> q+
15:42:58 <Luc> ack pao
15:43:00 <dgarijo> +1 to ultimate approach
15:43:12 <GK> satya: will not have two approaches, just the alternative approach
15:43:25 <zednik> q-
15:43:41 <pgroth> but that's rdf :-)
15:43:51 <Luc> q?
15:43:52 <Paolo> The EntityInRole approach has 19 nodes, about as many properties, and 3 new OWL classes
15:44:32 <Luc> q?
15:45:02 <tlebo> (the new "Usage, Generation, Control" qualifications of prov:used are subclasses of EntityInRole, but we won't be saying naming EntityInRole or asserting the subclass axioms.)
15:45:15 <Luc> q?
15:45:16 <tlebo> s/saying//
15:45:18 <GK> paolo: node count shouldn't be used as argument for one approach over the other (?)
15:45:46 <GK> Luc: one approach or two?
15:46:08 <GK> Satya: one approach.  New proposed approach, to be included when details are clear
15:46:33 <GK> Luc: when will PROV-O document be finalized?
15:46:36 <tlebo> regarding EntityInRole: we are just renaming it AND permitting "more direct" ways to state less qualified usages.
15:47:05 <GK> ... i.e. available for WG review
15:47:11 <zednik> @tlebo, but the semantics of Usage are different than the semantics of EntityInRole were
15:47:22 <dgarijo> @tim: but we are not just renaming it. EntityInRole is no longer a subclass of an Entity!
15:47:26 <GK> Satya: modelling changes will take time to work through
15:47:55 <GK> Satya: new editorial workover in a couple of days.  Modelling changes will take longer.
15:48:32 <dgarijo> @tlebo: if not, then the issues with double usages and new entity creation for the uses are still there.
15:48:47 <tlebo> @dgarijo, I'm indifferent to whether EntityInRole is a subclass of Entity, it's fine to relax it.
15:49:26 <zednik> I think there is less agreement than was earlier assumed
15:49:34 <Luc> q?
15:49:37 <GK> Luc: worried that rest of author team doesn't seem to agree with new approach
15:49:43 <jcheney> +q
15:50:29 <GK> Satya: can we have another separate call today or tomorrow to work this out.
15:50:42 <tlebo> q+ to say we aren't disagreeing too much.
15:50:49 <GK> Luc: we need you to reach a decision and give the rest of us something to review
15:51:03 <Luc> q?
15:51:25 <GK> Satya: will need some time to come up with missing parts not in OPMO/OWL
15:51:28 <dgarijo> @telbo:  you are saying that EntityInRole being a subclass on an Entity is indiferent. It changes everything.
15:51:29 <Luc> ack jc
15:52:14 <GK> jc: idea was raised as a thought experiment
15:52:17 <tlebo> @dgarigo, stop scaring @luc :-)
15:52:41 <tlebo> s/go/jo/
15:53:06 <GK> ... subgroup doesn't necessarily agree, but if we can forge consensus that one approach is good enough to put out for review and comment, this would be a way forward
15:53:21 <dgarijo> @tlebo: ok, but I just thought we had an agreement after the other day's telecon. I'm ok about having a telecon afterwards though.
15:53:38 <Luc> q?
15:53:43 <GK> tlebo:  not so much disagreeing, just ... converging on new direction?
15:54:10 <tlebo> apologies for making it look like we are disagreeing.
15:54:11 <GK> Luc: team will continue work on document, make it available to WG ASAP
15:54:12 <Luc> ack tl
15:54:12 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say we aren't disagreeing too much.
#15:54:27 <Luc> topic: paq document
15:54:29 <GK> Topic: PAQ document
<luc>Summary: the editors are planning to have a version ready for internal review next week.
15:55:35 <GK> pgroth: about same as couple of weeks ago.  Have been waiting on things to settle in data model. Also in ontology - as these affect queries and handling of context
15:55:57 <GK> ... expecting it will take about a week to bring this up to date
15:56:00 <GK> ... TODO
15:56:05 <GK> ... context URIs and entities
15:56:20 <GK> ... provenance services
15:56:29 <tlebo> (It's been a while since I've dug through OPMO - where's the best summary?)
15:56:35 <GK> ... incremental updates
15:56:41 <GK> ... editorial
15:56:48 <satya> @Tim:
15:57:28 <Luc> q?
15:57:34 <GK> ... w.r.t. incremental updates:  How to get provenance information incrementally?  Explaining fow to deal with large amounts of provenance?
15:58:28 <tlebo> @satya thanks!
15:58:31 <GK> Luc: do you mean this will be ready by next week?
15:58:50 <GK> Paul: I think we can manage that
15:58:57 <Luc> q?
#15:59:05 <Luc> Topic: PROV-DM 
15:59:11 <GK> ACTION Pau: drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week
15:59:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Pau
15:59:27 <GK> ACTION pgroth: drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week
15:59:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Drive new release of PAQ to WG for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2011-11-10].
15:59:50 <GK> Topic: PROV-DM
<luc> Summary: The WG recorded three proposals that were approved by email vote during the week. A revision of the document incorporating the recent proposals (and further to be voted on) is going to be produced by the editors.
15:59:51 <Luc> Accepted: Rename 'Entity Expression' into 'Entity Record'; similarly, rename 'XXX Expression' into 'XXX Record'. 
16:00:43 <Luc> Accepted: Attributes are a necessary part of prov-dm. Attribute-value pairs can be optionally included in Entity Expressions and Activity Expressions.
16:00:57 <dgarijo> The definition from the incubator: Provenance of a resource is a record that describes entities and processes involved in producing and delivering or otherwise influencing that resource. Provenance provides a critical foundation for assessing authenticity, enabling trust, and allowing reproducibility.
16:01:32 <GK> Luc: Proposal on attributes - attributes are useful for interop with other provenance representations
16:02:09 <GK> ... questions about constraints associated with attributes; propose to remove these from the data model
16:02:34 <GK> ... we may revisit entity constraints in context of semantics
16:02:39 <Luc> Accepted: Constraints related to attributes will be dropped: (derivation-attributes, use-attributes, generation-affects-attributes) 
16:03:28 <Zakim> +??P17
16:03:40 <Luc> q?
16:03:46 <GK> Luc: second proposal: will not enter into detail of what attributes are "characterizing"
16:04:06 <Luc> q?
16:04:17 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:04:19 <GK> ... will start of document rev with all accepted proposals
16:04:24 <GK> s/of/on/
16:04:30 <pgroth> q?
16:04:46 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:04:48 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
16:04:50 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:04:50 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:04:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:04:52 <GK> End of meeting.
16:04:53 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:04:55 <Zakim> -??P17
16:04:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:04:57 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:04:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:05:02 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:05:08 <Zakim> -Luc
16:05:19 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaaa
16:05:29 <Zakim> -??P27
16:05:41 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:05:41 <Zakim> -GK
16:06:06 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 
16:06:10 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:06:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Luc
16:06:16 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon