Chatlog 2011-11-10

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.

15:47:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:47:24 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:47:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:47:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:47:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:47:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:47:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:29 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2011
15:47:38 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:47:38 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:57 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:48:13 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:48:41 <pgroth> Regrets: Christine Runnegar
15:49:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:49:48 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:53:32 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:54:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:54:08 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:54:32 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:56:09 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:56:31 <pgroth> any volunteers for scribe?
15:56:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:56:55 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:56:55 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:56:59 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:19 <Zakim> +??P55
15:58:24 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:58:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:58:48 <Zakim> +??P56
15:59:17 <saty> saty has joined #prov
16:00:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P55 is me
16:00:07 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:00:19 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo
16:00:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:00:41 <Zakim> +??P64
16:00:48 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:00:53 <jcheney> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:00:53 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:01:01 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
16:01:09 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:20 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:01:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
16:01:25 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:36 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:01:41 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P64 is me
16:01:41 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:05 <Zakim> +[ISI]
16:02:19 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, +1.315.330.aabb, [ISI]
16:02:46 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:02:49 <tlebo> Zakim, aabb is tlebo
16:02:56 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:03:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:22 <Zakim> +??P80
16:03:29 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P80 is me
16:03:29 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:03:57 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:04:02 <GK> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], [IPcaller.a], khalidbelhajjame
16:04:12 <pgroth>
16:04:18 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 3 telecon
16:04:19 <saty> +1
16:04:23 <smiles> +1
16:04:29 <Curt> 0 (did not attend)
16:04:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +0 (was not in last week)
16:04:30 <Paolo> +1
16:04:41 <tlebo> +1
16:04:41 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:04:43 <GK> Khalid, are you sure ??PP80 is you?
16:04:43 <StephenCresswell> +1
16:04:47 <jcheney> +1
16:04:56 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, not sure
16:05:07 <pgroth> ACCEPTED Nov 3. 2011 minutes
16:05:17 <pgroth>
16:05:25 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
16:05:27 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, I will leave the call and come back and see 
16:05:34 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:06:10 <Paolo> Tim's action presumably taken care of 
16:06:19 <Paolo> Paul completed his action (42)
16:06:20 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:06:24 <Paolo> Tim's action was 41 -- closed
16:06:28 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
16:06:32 <pgroth> Reminder F2F2 Poll:
16:06:49 <Zakim> +??P72
16:06:49 <Paolo> we are skipping action 40 at this time
16:06:53 <GK> zakim, ??pp80 is me
16:06:53 <Zakim> sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named '??pp80'
16:07:06 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P72 is me
16:07:06 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:07:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:07:13 <GK> zakim, pp80 is me
16:07:13 <Zakim> sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named 'pp80'
16:07:25 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:07:25 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:07:28 <GK> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo
16:07:39 <Paolo> TOPIC PROV-PRIMER
<pgroth> Summary: Primer has a good start. Group is looking to finish the first draft by the end of the week. It may not be completely in sink with PROV-O as that is still changing, in particular, with respect to accounts.
16:08:18 <Paolo> smiles: good contribs but still got gaps 
16:08:35 <Paolo> smiles: Stephan , Paolo, Yolanda to contribute to a complete draft by this week
16:08:53 <Paolo> smiles: so that the WG can start commenting
16:09:02 <Paolo> smiles: Stephan creating turtle examples
16:09:08 <Paolo> smiles: smiles to complete the intro
16:09:08 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
16:09:11 <Zakim> +Sandro
16:09:18 <Paolo> smiles: Yolanda to give it a check
16:09:33 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:09:36 <Paolo> smiles: then Paolo to translate turtle -> ASN
16:09:59 <Paolo> smiles:: accounts still missing. That's because it hasn't settled in PROV-O 
16:10:06 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:10:06 <pgroth> q?
16:10:18 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:10:19 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc
16:10:32 <tlebo> Account will be defined :-)
16:10:36 <Paolo> Khalid: on account. PROV-O will not have explicit account, as named graphs will be used
16:10:52 <tlebo> Account will be part of the ontology :-)
16:11:12 <Paolo> smiles: still, some encoding of them is needed for the examples
16:11:15 <GK> q+ to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
16:11:18 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
16:11:22 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aadd
16:11:23 <pgroth> Zakim, who's loud?
16:11:24 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:11:51 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:11:52 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+44.238.059.aaaa'
16:11:53 <Paolo> Tim: wil use named grpahs, but also RDF to express accounts. So it's going to be both
16:12:04 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo, Sandro,
16:12:05 <Paolo> s/grpahs/graphs
16:12:07 <Zakim> ... +1.518.633.aacc, +1.937.343.aadd
16:12:20 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me
16:12:21 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it
16:12:43 <pgroth> ack gk
16:12:43 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
16:12:43 <Luc> ... and also in prov-dm, accounts need to be finalized
16:12:56 <Paolo> pgroth: fine, but work is still ongoing in PROV-O re: accounts, which explains why they are not in the primer at tis time
16:13:01 <Paolo> s/tis/this
16:13:05 <tlebo> ORE - good pointer?
16:13:11 <tlebo> thx!
16:13:17 <pgroth> q?
16:13:37 <pgroth> q?
16:13:41 <Paolo> smiles:  distribution of first draft expected by start of next week
16:13:42 <tlebo> A rough example of account modeling:
16:13:48 <pgroth> Topic: PAQ
<pgroth> Summary: Editors gave an overview of the updates. Editors believe it is ready to go to FPWD have asked for feedback before a vote next week.
16:13:56 <smiles> @Paolo shall I take over scribing now?
16:14:10 <Paolo> @smiles:  yes please, much appreciated :-)
16:14:14 <smiles> Scribe: smiles
16:14:15 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:14:31 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
16:14:42 <Paolo> I will do my other half next time :-)
16:14:46 <smiles> GK: Updated PAQ, as agreed for FPWD
16:15:01 <smiles> GK: Note, not yet fully proof read
16:15:43 <smiles> pgroth: Big changes are to align the PAQ with the terminology in DM, e.g. entity
16:16:06 <smiles> ... and a decision about the format of headers for retrieving provenance info for a resource
16:16:29 <smiles> ... and added a section to deal with incremental access to large amounts of provenance
16:16:46 <smiles> ... Also compacted things, referring to DM
16:16:55 <smiles> ... Everyone please look at the document
16:17:12 <smiles> GK: Closed issue tags in document but not tracker
16:17:44 <smiles> ... Comment from Yogesh about not guaranteed to get identifier of entity in provenance data, so added note on this
16:17:49 <pgroth> q?
16:18:05 <Luc> q+
16:18:27 <smiles> Luc: Decide in next telecon whether to release FPWD?
16:18:42 <pgroth> q?
16:18:43 <smiles> pgroth: Yes, would be good to know if there are any show stoppers by next telecon
16:18:44 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:18:48 <pgroth> q?
16:18:56 <tlebo> q+
16:19:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo
16:19:16 <smiles> tlebo: Will predicate hasProvenance be encoded in Prov-O?
16:19:52 <smiles> GK: Was included for discussion, but yes need to agree with other task forces (namespace, name, inclusion in ontology)
16:20:08 <satya> q+
16:20:25 <pgroth> ack satya
16:20:32 <smiles> tlebo: Will start developing inclusion of hasProvenance into ontology
16:20:42 <smiles> satya: What is domain and range?
16:20:53 <tlebo> owl Thing.
16:20:58 <smiles> GK: Domain is entity, range to be decided (account?)
16:21:08 <tlebo> ProvenanceContainer?
16:21:37 <pgroth> q?
16:21:42 <smiles> satya: What provenance is may change across applications, need to assert about account or container itself
16:21:46 <smiles> GK: Yes
16:22:00 <smiles> GK: Account or container is itself an entity
16:22:00 <pgroth> q?
16:22:00 <satya> @GK +1 for that point
16:22:20 <dgarijo> @GK that sound good to me too
16:22:21 <pgroth> Topic: Update on PROV-O
<pgroth> Summary: PROV-O is mostly done. Needs some final details to be sorted out with the use of n-ary relations. 
16:22:56 <smiles> satya: Fleshed out details on how to add qualifier info to predicates, modelled under class QualifiedInvolvement
16:23:16 <smiles> satya: Outstanding issues: need good name for QI to entity link
16:23:41 <tlebo> (we have been running with prov:entity, but prov:entityInQualification was suggested and sounds reasonable)
16:23:44 <Paolo> apologies for checking out now --
16:23:46 <smiles> ... inference rules to apply to non-binary properties with new classes
16:24:03 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:24:24 <smiles> ... need clarifications on DM: can roles be associated with both entities and process executions?
16:24:35 <smiles> ... at the moment only one or the other
16:25:03 <pgroth> q?
16:25:05 <smiles> ... Moving forward, all terms except "entity in role" modelled, so working towards FPWD
16:25:06 <Luc> q?
16:25:09 <Luc> q+
16:25:13 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:25:53 <tlebo> The proposal is at
16:25:55 <smiles> satya: n-ary properties modelled as classes, can say 8 as denominator in division process
16:26:05 <smiles> ... but cannot model role of process execution
16:26:15 <zednik> the process execution has a role (part or function) in itself?
16:26:19 <smiles> Luc: Please send an email explaining problem with example
16:26:23 <pgroth> q?
16:26:27 <GK> That ORE reference I mentioned for mentioning graphs in an ontology:
16:26:29 <smiles> satya: sure
16:26:32 <tlebo> Thanks!
16:26:54 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-XML
<pgroth> Summary: Discussed the need for PROV-XML. Clarified the role in the charter that prov-xml should be a "native" xml friendly serialization, not RDF/XML. James Cheney, Luc Moreau and Stephan Zednik would be interested in helping with it. Luc noted possible outside interest in prov-xml. The group showed interest in a possible native json serialization.
16:27:16 <smiles> pgroth: In charter, have notion of natural XML serialisation of the DM
16:27:34 <smiles> ... due at 18 months, but can start thinking about now
16:27:49 <smiles> ... want to know who is interested in starting to produce this serialisation
16:28:05 <pgroth> +q
16:28:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:28:10 <jcheney> q+
16:28:10 <pgroth> q?
16:28:17 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:28:55 <smiles> jcheney: Some people previously said that RDF can be expressed in XML, but sounds like in charter going straight from DM to XML
16:29:03 <smiles> ... would be interested in being involved in some way
16:29:32 <smiles> pgroth: Yes, in charter, straight from DM to XML, RDF/XML is not pretty XML
16:29:44 <pgroth> q?
16:29:58 <GK> Presumable, want something that plays well with XML tooling, which RDF/XML does not.
16:30:06 <Luc> q+
16:30:11 <smiles> jcheney: We should agree that this is indeed what is intended
16:30:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:31:09 <smiles> Luc: Interested in this, have had questions from users on OPM XML and interested in Prov XML schema, and they may be interested in contributing
16:31:26 <smiles> ... Has very early attempt at XML schema
16:31:29 <pgroth> q?
16:31:50 <Luc> q+
16:31:54 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:32:03 <smiles> pgroth: 2 people interested, maybe need to bring in other experts from outside
16:32:15 <zednik> xml - I may be able to help, but will not be able to lead
16:32:32 <GK> I might be interested in JSON :)
16:32:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Me too Graham
16:32:52 <smiles> Luc: questionnaire circulated showed interest in many serialisations, so some may be able to help with XML
16:32:52 <Curt> +JSON
16:33:07 <smiles> zednik: Yes, users interested in XML
16:33:15 <smiles> ... close to that of RDF
16:33:24 <GK> (Even Zakim is interested, apparently :) )
16:33:25 <smiles> Luc: go back to those people?
16:33:50 <smiles> Luc: First go back to those people for feedback
16:33:51 <tlebo> @gk, could you write something at ?
16:33:58 <smiles> zednik: will do so
16:34:15 <smiles> Luc: may not be able to list on Wiki or email for privacy
16:34:38 <smiles> zednik: some users agreed to have feedback shared, can put document up on protected W3C site
16:34:43 <GK> @tlebo, sure
16:35:00 <smiles> pgroth: Saw JSON interest on IRC, are people interest?
16:35:02 <pgroth> Interest in JSON note?
16:35:15 <satya> +1
16:35:16 <zednik> +1
16:35:17 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:35:21 <sandro> +1
16:35:23 <jcheney> +0.5 (what would we say exactly?)
16:35:23 <GK> +1 ... but not in a rush to do it
16:35:25 <Curt> We use JSON internally, but I think RDF makes a better standard for interchange.
16:35:27 <Curt> +1
16:35:36 <dgarijo> +0
16:35:52 <pgroth> q?
16:36:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Semantics
<pgroth> Summary: Discussion on role of prov-semantics. Two possible roles: 1) to have a well defined mathematical model underlying PROV-DM 2) to facilitate mapping between serializations and the PROV-DM. Support was shown for a mathematical model to help clarify PROV-DM semantics.
16:36:37 <smiles> pgroth: Deliverable on semantics in charter, but up to us to decide what is usable and interesting for standard
16:36:54 <jcheney> Two possibilities (not mutually exclusive):
16:36:59 <GK> q+ to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
16:37:11 <jcheney> 1.  Developing a mathematical model of the "things", "entities", "processes", "events" and other relationships as in the PROV-DM, and explaining the PROV-DM statements in terms of this model. (current strawman)
16:38:17 <smiles> jcheney: Current strawman generated some discussion, but died down, also needs updating to current DM
16:38:52 <smiles> jcheney: Luc said was helpful, can provide some justifications for inferences
16:39:33 <jcheney> 2.  Defining the mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-O (and maybe "PROV-XML") formally, e.g. using a datalog or ML-like notation.
16:40:04 <smiles> jcheney: We might not just want to specify data model and serialisations separately, but also formally how we map from DM to those representations, what it means to be a correct translation
16:40:49 <smiles> jcheney: Don't want to have multiple translators between each pair of serialisations, want to translate to Prov-DM and back
16:41:07 <pgroth> q?
16:41:12 <pgroth> ack GK
16:41:12 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
16:42:14 <smiles> GK: Concerned that there is a confusion between the DM and the RDF representation (as James said, but focus more on concepts)
16:42:49 <smiles> ... concerned about pushing RDF concepts into DM without RDF semantics, better for DM to be above the RDF structure
16:42:56 <satya> @GK +1 for not conflating DM and RDF semantics'
16:43:16 <smiles> ... formal semantics, independent from OWL, for DM could help with this
16:43:39 <smiles> ... then may be possible to prove that RDF semantics corresponds to abstract DM
16:43:48 <pgroth> q?
16:43:49 <satya> q+
16:43:55 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:44:25 <tlebo> +1 for adding a DM semantics. Some of the inferences in the DM writeup are difficult to follow from its narrative.
16:44:41 <smiles> satya: Not clear how mapping is related to formal semantics, why not just translation
16:44:46 <GK> @satya - isn't this like prrof-theoretic and model-theoretic laters?
16:44:47 <pgroth> q?
16:44:52 <Luc> q+
16:45:02 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:45:26 <jcheney> q+
16:45:31 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
16:45:32 <smiles> Luc: James' suggestion 2 is good from interoperability point of view, regardless of whether part of formal semantics activity
16:45:48 <tlebo> q+ to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
16:46:14 <satya> @GK, I guess but not sure in context of DM and its semantics
16:46:14 <GK> q+ to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
16:46:37 <smiles> jcheney: We already talk about how to translate ASN to Prov-O in Prov-O document, so thought useful to have more mathematically precise defn of that in formal semantics
16:47:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo
16:47:02 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
16:47:03 <satya> @James - I think we need it
16:47:08 <smiles> ... if we have one deliverable of formalisation, then a formal mapping to serialisation should go there
16:47:45 <smiles> tlebo: How does mechanics of formal semantics work? How different to, more precise than the serialisations?
16:48:17 <satya> @James - In addition, as WG we have the responsibility for defining the mappings between the different representations (DM, PROV-O, XML, JSON)
16:48:45 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
16:48:54 <Zakim> +??P2
16:49:02 <smiles> jcheney: First thought of what goes in formal semantics is like RDF semantics, e.g. what you can write in the language
16:49:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P2 is me
16:49:07 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:49:30 <tlebo> what do you mean by "scope" :-)
16:49:45 <tlebo> naming or account partitioning
16:50:02 <pgroth> q?
16:50:34 <satya> q+
16:50:44 <smiles> ... If we have semantics abstracts from what you have to write down, then can express self-consistency of scoping rules etc..
16:50:56 <pgroth> ack GK
16:50:56 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
16:51:37 <smiles> GK: In SW area, model theoretic semantics maps OWL/RDF expressions to objects in domain of discourse (set theory)
16:52:28 <smiles> GK: With regards to interoperability, difference between demonstrating interoperability and formally proving equivalence
16:53:07 <smiles> ... Pat Hayes formal semantics of RDF is a useful intro to model theoretic semantics
16:53:08 <pgroth> ack satya
16:54:14 <smiles> satya: Important to define mappings from DM to serialisations, but how necessary to define semantics of DM/ASN itself? Is outcome that we are defining a new language, ASN?
16:54:23 <Luc> we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
16:54:29 <pgroth> q?
16:55:08 <smiles> pgroth: Some agreement for a need for formal semantics of DM (suggestion 1 by James)
16:55:51 <Luc> we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
16:55:51 <pgroth> q?
16:56:07 <Paolo> @satya: the semantics is of the model not the language
16:56:27 <pgroth> q?
16:56:59 <smiles> jcheney: To move forward, first need to catch up with DM and compare with strawman
16:57:25 <smiles> ... regardless of whether mapping is formal semantics or not, still clear it is useful and focus on first
16:57:55 <satya> @Paolo: I will reserve my comments (till we have more details of the formal semantics of DM means) 
16:57:55 <GK> James mentioned a datalog approach: I think that could be used to build in formal semantics from FoL - for which there exists a model theory.
16:58:11 <satya> @GK, ok that makes sense
16:58:22 <smiles> ... Also happy for anyone interested to be involved, starting with mapping from Prov-DM to Prov-O
16:58:22 <GK> There was a proposal by R V Guha and (I think) Pat Hayes, many years ago, to do something sikilar for RDF.
16:58:22 <satya> @James - I can help you with that
16:58:45 <pgroth> TOPIC: Prov-DM
<pgroth> Summary: Approved a proposal to use a single notion of attribute-value pairs. Discussed various forums of derivation and how to simplify it in the data model.
16:59:06 <pgroth> Proposed: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production."
16:59:23 <Paolo> @satya: set-theoretical interpretation is usually what works with data models
16:59:35 <pgroth>
16:59:54 <GK> +1 (but have separate concern about the phrasing using "characterozation")
16:59:57 <tlebo> q+
16:59:57 <smiles> pgroth: any objections?
16:59:57 <dgarijo> +1
17:00:01 <Paolo> +1
17:00:04 <pgroth> q?
17:00:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo
17:00:16 <smiles> tlebo: what was the intent of the distinction?
17:00:22 <jcheney> @satya, @paolo: The strawman is an attempt to map PROV-DM in terms of sets/functions.
17:00:56 <Paolo> good, thanks
17:00:59 <smiles> Luc: Attributes were in context of entities, fixed in characterisation interval; relations did not have durations
17:01:00 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
17:01:04 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
17:01:12 <jcheney> @GK: Yes, datalog is interpretable in terms of FO model theory; however, dealing with things that change over time seem hard to model this way.  Still, datalog good as a lightweight formalism.
17:01:13 <smiles> ... but distinction did not bring much, so better to merge
17:01:37 <GK> @jcheney if functions themselves are sets of pairs, that maybe starts to look like a model theory?
17:01:44 <pgroth> Accepted: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to character�ize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production.
17:02:05 <pgroth>
17:02:23 <tlebo> Tim's notes on Luc's response: attriubtes on entities (duration, characterization, etc) same for PEs. but for Relations (didn't have durations). ATTRIBUTE-values were for Entity+PEs, NAME-values were on Relations.
17:02:26 <jcheney> @GK: Correct, using functions doesn't take us out of set theory/model theory semantics.
17:02:52 <satya> @Paul: I also need additional clarification
17:02:58 <smiles> pgroth: Fairly well accepted, except for Simon's objection
17:03:05 <tlebo> q?
17:03:12 <satya> @Paul: I did not have time to respond to this issue
17:03:15 <smiles> Luc: actually very few voted either way
17:03:49 <smiles> Luc: we haven't got enough support yet to resolve here, need to understand what Simon is saying
17:04:01 <GK> I was unclear about dependedUpon/eventuallyDerivedFrom distinction.
17:04:04 <tlebo> I'm confused by the use of multiple proposals; will try to read and comment on email.
17:04:23 <tlebo> (but I did get the impression that much of those predicates were redundant)
17:04:37 <GK> I think the transitivity issue is a different one
17:04:38 <smiles> Luc: we need a notion of transitive derivation, good examples of non-transitive when linked to activities, but unclear on wasEventuallyDerivedFrom
17:04:42 <Paolo> general proposal: in addition to recording  objections on the list (which may have veto effect), keep an exact count of the people who vote on the list -- the support to a proposal
17:05:05 <GK> simplification is good!
17:05:06 <smiles> pgroth: Goal is to simplify
17:05:10 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:05:11 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:05:12 <Zakim> -[ISI]
17:05:13 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:05:15 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:05:17 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:05:22 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc
17:05:23 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:05:33 <Zakim> -Luc
17:05:35 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:05:39 <Zakim> -??P56
17:05:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
17:05:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:05:54 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:05:57 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:05:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:06:00 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:06:04 <Zakim> -Vinh
17:06:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
17:06:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:06:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:06:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:06:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:06:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items