Chatlog 2012-01-26

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.

15:59:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:59:53 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:59:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:59:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:59:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:59:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:59:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:59:58 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2012
16:00:02 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
16:00:07 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
16:00:22 <Curt> scribe: Curt
16:00:23 <pgroth> Agenda:
16:00:43 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
16:00:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:30 <Mike> Mike has joined #prov
16:01:44 <Curt> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Paolo Missier, Khalid Belhajjame, Daniel Garijo
16:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aaaa
16:01:58 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
16:02:03 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.646.389.aabb
16:02:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:02:13 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:02:15 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:02:21 <Zakim> +tlebo
16:02:29 <Zakim> +??P51
16:02:37 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc
16:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:03:08 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:03:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P54
16:03:39 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:54 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?
16:04:08 <davidschaengold> davidschaengold has joined #prov
16:04:16 <Zakim> +??P60
16:04:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
16:04:30 <jcheney> zakim, ??P60 is me
16:04:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
16:04:55 <davidschaengold> Zakim, aabb is me
16:04:57 <kai> kai has joined #prov
16:04:59 <satya> satya has joined #prov
<pgroth>Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of Jan 19 2012 telcon accepted. Satya agreed to respond to open issues but will do so later. He said that it these issues should not hinder release of prov-dm as third public working draft.
16:05:43 <pgroth>
16:05:45 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:05:52 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon
16:05:54 <satya> +1
16:05:57 <davidschaengold> +1
16:05:58 <Curt> 0 (not present)
16:06:13 <Christine> 0 (not present)
16:06:13 <kai> 0 (not present)
16:06:15 <smiles> +1
16:06:16 <jcheney> +1
16:06:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see davidschaengold, jcheney, smiles, Christine, Mike, Zakim, RRSAgent, zednik, pgroth, GK_, Curt, Luc, MacTed, mdmdm, stain, trackbot, sandro
16:06:24 <Zakim> +davidschaengold; got it
16:06:32 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:06:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:07:02 <Zakim> +??P73
16:07:05 <pgroth> Accepted: minutes Jan 19 telecon
16:07:15 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
16:07:26 <kai> Zakim, ??P73 is me.
16:07:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :)
16:07:58 <Zakim> +kai; got it
16:08:27 <Curt> pgroth: actions: satya reviewing issues
16:08:50 <Curt> satya: will try to respond to each on list, but time is short, progress on many of them
16:09:13 <Curt> ... many already addressed, satya just needs to review and make proper recommendations 
16:09:18 <pgroth> q?
16:09:30 <pgroth> Topic: F2F prep document updates
<pgroth> Summary: Brief update on each of the documents before the F2F. All were in reasonable shape for discussion at the F2F. There was a discussion about annotations in the prov-o and the impact on prov-primer. Simon Miles is to discuss the issue with the prov-o team.
16:09:48 <Curt> pgroth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F
16:10:04 <Curt> ... prov-primer
16:11:15 <satya> q+
16:11:27 <Curt> working out updates needed, not changed since last editors version
16:11:58 <Curt> satya: rdfs already provides way to do annotations, not currently modeled like that
16:12:29 <pgroth> ack satya
16:13:11 <Curt> satya: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer, 
16:13:28 <Curt> pgroth: prov-aq
16:14:03 <Curt> ...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after
16:14:04 <pgroth> q?
16:14:11 <Curt> ... in good shape for F2F
16:14:19 <Curt> pgroth: prov-dm
16:14:29 <Curt> luc: third working draft to release today for F2F
16:14:36 <pgroth> q?
16:14:40 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o
16:15:23 <Curt> many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss
16:15:24 <Luc> q+
16:15:28 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:15:33 <Curt> current version has edits
16:15:55 <Curt> luc: no update for precise/imprecise derivations
16:16:08 <Curt> satya: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined
16:16:29 <Curt> luc: some decisions made
16:16:53 <pgroth> q?
16:16:57 <Curt> satya: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion
16:17:02 <Curt> pgroth: prov-sem
16:17:32 <Curt> jcheney: not much changed recently, watching prov-o domain of discourse discussion, which may have an impact
16:17:44 <Curt> jcheney: waiting for final determination to incorporate
16:17:56 <Curt> jcheney: a few more things to flesh out that will happen prior to F2F
16:18:14 <Curt> pgroth: most documents in reasonable sync. given work that has been done
16:18:37 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft
<pgroth> Summary: Prov-dm was approved to be released as a third public working draft. Editors clarified that the issue of identifiers and accounts will be addressed in the fourth working draft. 
16:19:22 <Luc>
16:20:30 <Curt> luc: work on complement, specialization, examples, derivation, collections, restructuring, new section 7 with constraints on data model
16:20:53 <Curt> ... ... agent and hadPlan
16:21:11 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft 
16:21:19 <smiles> +1
16:21:24 <satya> q+
16:21:24 <jcheney> +1
16:21:25 <MacTed> +1
16:21:28 <Curt> +1
16:21:32 <kai> +1
16:21:53 <Curt> satya: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers?
16:22:05 <pgroth> ack satya
16:22:30 <Curt> luc: no, those aren't incorporated yet, those will go into the 4th WD, identifiers and accounts
16:23:12 <Curt> ... too many changes to incorporate, still determining final agreement on identifiers/accounts, may take a while
16:23:37 <satya> +1
16:23:38 <pgroth> q?
16:23:40 <Curt> satya: yes, those may have broad impact
16:24:03 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
16:24:21 <satya> q+
16:24:48 <Curt> satya: good to freeze changes at a defined point and release a good draft
16:25:01 <Curt> ... we should follow that model for prov-o
16:25:07 <pgroth> ack satya
16:25:13 <Curt> pgroth: required by W3C to release each 3 months
16:25:21 <Curt> luc: good to have well-defined goals for each release
16:25:31 <pgroth> Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
<pgroth> Summary: Continued discussion of identifiers in prov-dm. The key goal was to provide guidance to the editors in creating proposals. It was agreed that Entities, Activities and Events should be considered part of of the universe of discourse. There was agreement that association should be part of the universe of discourse as well. There was still debate about Derivation and other relations due to the question of whether these releations are descriptions of activities or entities or whether describe something else. A long discussion around whether provenance record should be part of the universe of discourse was held. A key question that came up was how the provenance of provenance would be supported. There was consensus that provenance of provenance should be supported. There was some idea that one should be able to "put" a provenance record into the universe of discourse but that provenance records were not automatically part of it. The issue remains open.
16:25:40 <Luc>
16:26:06 <Luc> I hope I included all the votes (I just added James')
16:26:06 <pgroth> *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all 
16:26:07 <pgroth> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and 
16:26:07 <pgroth> otherwise)     SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an 
16:26:07 <pgroth> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects 
16:26:07 <pgroth> described." (intent)
16:27:07 <pgroth> q?
16:27:18 <Curt> pgroth: a series of items were considered to determine what should be part of the universe of discourse
16:27:28 <pgroth> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
16:27:48 <Luc> all votes were positive
16:28:34 <MacTed> I have failed to keep up with the list this week, and see argument with several of these proposals...
16:28:43 <Curt> (many who voted are not present)
16:28:57 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:28:57 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:29:08 <Curt> luc/pgroth: record previous vote for minutes rather than re-voting here
16:29:42 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 1. Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
16:30:01 <pgroth> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
16:30:01 <pgroth> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
16:30:02 <pgroth> discourse
16:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: 
16:30:27 <MacTed> I accept Proposals 1-4, and have concerns or issues with 5-9
16:30:32 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of discourse
16:30:48 <satya> q+
16:31:21 <satya> q-
16:31:24 <pgroth> ack satay
16:31:33 <Curt> satya: with respect to prov-o, those were included
16:31:37 <Luc> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains, Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation, Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After removal belong to the universe of discourse. 
16:32:11 <Curt> luc: Stian voted -1 (for all but associations)
16:32:36 <Curt> ... not sure of his rationale
16:33:35 <Curt> tim: laundry list is long, a concern to determine how each should be modeled in prov-o
16:34:06 <Curt> luc: satya suppoted derivation, association and activity ordering, do you support those?
16:34:07 <Curt> tim: yes
16:34:31 <pgroth> q?
16:34:43 <Curt> luc: why doesn't stian think association should not be part of universe of discourse?
16:34:57 <Curt> pgroth: possibly rephrase proposal 3 and re-vote?
16:35:17 <Curt> luc: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those
16:35:17 <Luc> Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the unvierse of discourse 
16:35:44 <Curt> luc: we'll discuss with stian further and rephrase rest of proposal 3
16:36:17 <Curt> tim: accepts association
16:36:26 <pgroth> q?
16:36:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse 
16:36:40 <pgroth> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
16:36:40 <pgroth> discourse
16:37:13 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:37:20 <Curt> pgroth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now
16:37:20 <pgroth> q?
16:37:33 <Luc> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record. 
16:38:02 <pgroth> q?
16:38:09 <Curt> pgroth: satya and macted disagree
16:38:44 <Curt> satya: we need a construct to aggregate prov. assertions, if we remove records/accounts, we won't have a good way to do that
16:39:21 <Curt> macted: is this to differentiate data/metadata in a given context?
16:39:23 <Luc> q+
16:39:27 <pgroth> q?
16:39:45 <Curt> ... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata
16:39:58 <zednik> q+
16:39:58 <Curt> luc: we're trying to establish that
16:40:07 <Curt> macted: we need to make that distinction
16:40:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:40:41 <Curt> luc: we are talking about different levels, the world where things happen; level 2 descriptions of what happened in the world
16:40:54 <Curt> ... account records are at that second level
16:41:05 <Curt> ... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance
16:41:31 <Curt> macted: that isn't clear in these proposals
16:41:38 <Curt> luc: we're trying to represent that intent
16:42:10 <Curt> macted: things/entities are interchangeable, the proposals aren't clear 
16:42:34 <Curt> luc: we're trying to determine how to represent our intent into the documents
16:42:46 <Curt> macted: difficult with text alone
16:42:47 <jcheney> See also ISSUE-212
16:42:52 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:42:56 <Curt> luc: yes, more graphics would help explain the concepts
16:43:26 <Curt> zednik: yes, confusing, perhaps graphics or ASN could help explain this better, esp. things like prov. of prov.
16:43:26 <Luc> q+
16:43:29 <jcheney> Is prov of prov on the critical path?  I agree it's important but perhaps we should table it until one-layer prov is stable
16:43:32 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:43:42 <satya> q+
16:43:44 <Curt> pgroth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group
16:44:22 <pgroth> q?
16:44:25 <Curt> macted: this is a perpetual problem in graphs, the recursion.  These levels can be better described graphically
16:44:36 <Curt> luc: we haven't determined how to express prov. of prov. yet
16:45:09 <zednik> @jcheney from "Recommendation # 4: A provenance framework should include a standard way to express the provenance of provenance assertions, as there can be several accounts of provenance and with different granularity and that may possibly conflict"
16:45:21 <Curt> ... for some account records aren't part of discourse, but if you do want to talk about them, then you will have to identify them
16:45:34 <satya> q-
16:45:38 <zednik> q+
16:45:40 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:45:44 <Curt> ... do we want to have prov. of prov.?  is that part of the scope we should cover?
16:45:47 <pgroth> ack zednik 
16:46:06 <Curt> zednik: we don't want to preclude describing prov. of prov.
16:46:47 <Curt> luc: the term 'thing' -- if we use an account record, we need to make the 'thing' an entity so we can describe it
16:47:06 <Curt> ... looking for guidelines/recommendations of where we are going with this
16:47:12 <pgroth> q?
16:47:41 <Curt> pgroth: if we remove notion of account record from proposal 5, would that be in line with our thinking?
16:47:47 <tlebo> +1 luc: the way to talk about things is by introducing entities. (we get provenance of provenance by making entities about the records - we effectively have shifted the two levels.)
16:47:57 <stephenc> We have a use case for provenance-of-provenance on legislation
16:47:58 <pgroth> q?
16:48:10 <pgroth> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
16:48:35 <pgroth> q?
16:49:07 <Curt> macted: this is the recursion problem.  prov. of a thing is itself a thing (an entity) when asserting provenance about it
16:49:19 <satya> q+
16:49:20 <Curt> macted: difficult to express without a picture
16:49:35 <Curt> luc: we need more guidance to even draw the picture
16:49:50 <tlebo> +1 (if i want to talk about Records, I make an entity about it)
16:50:02 <pgroth> i agree with you tlebo
16:50:05 <Curt> ... if all records have an identity, that is a different direction that if records are not part of the universe of discourse
16:50:33 <pgroth> q?
16:50:40 <Curt> macted: example - i have a table, built 1727, joe smith, sold on jan 19, 1728, sold again, again, again
16:50:50 <Curt> ... we track that journey through the world -- the provenance
16:50:58 <Curt> ... the records of that provenance are a distinct entity
16:51:11 <Curt> ... the provenance of the provenance are that I said it was built in 1727
16:51:22 <Curt> ... that shift the perspective up a level
16:51:30 <kai> +1 for provenance on provenance. 
16:51:42 <Curt> ... one level talks about the table, one about the provenance, one about the provenance of the records of the provenance.
16:51:45 <kai> That's metadata provenance
16:51:59 <tlebo> (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift)
16:52:03 <Curt> macted: this can be difficult to follow
16:52:25 <tlebo> @macted, good example
16:52:35 <Curt> pgroth: that use case is clear, but how do we best communicate that?   what construct should prov-dm have?
16:52:56 <Curt> macted: use a concrete example to figure that out, rather than trying to solve in the abstract
16:53:14 <Curt> ... have to look at both sides to make sure it all works
16:53:24 <pgroth> q
16:53:24 <Curt> ... doing the abstract first makes this harder
16:53:26 <pgroth> q?
16:53:32 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:53:49 <zednik> +1 to use concrete example before decidiing on abstract model restrictions
16:53:52 <Curt> satya: the way to talk about things is to introduce entities
16:54:13 <Curt> ... when we want to talk about prov-of-prov, we need to have a universal construct for that
16:54:38 <pgroth> q?
16:54:41 <Curt> ... we have been discussing this notion already.  records should be part of the universe of discourse
16:54:49 <jcheney> q+
16:55:00 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:55:10 <tlebo> @satya, did you say that you need Account Records AND Accounts in UOD?
16:55:25 <Curt> jcheney: I said I agree there is a difference between saying all records are part of the UofD, or if some could be
16:55:44 <Curt> ... some ambiguity.  Some entities might contain information about provenance records contained elsewhere
16:55:53 <Curt> ... in order to express prov-of-prov
16:56:04 <kai> q+
16:56:41 <Curt> ... this isn't something we have to decide now to make progress, could we say "by default records aren't necessarily identified entities in the UofD, but they might be"
16:56:42 <pgroth> q?
16:57:07 <tlebo> +1 james: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them (this shifts the perspective)
16:57:29 <Curt> kai: we have a similar problem in dublin core, we can describe everything, but then we have to describe the description
16:57:29 <Zakim> -??P51
16:58:06 <tlebo> +1 "it's nothing special'!
16:58:07 <Curt> ... we need to be able to describe prov-of-prov, need to consider the prov itself as an entity.
16:58:17 <Curt> ... if we do that, then we don't have a problem
16:58:46 <Curt> ... keep it simple, just say that prov. itself can be an entity, then you can describe it just like you describe the prov. of any entity
16:58:48 <tlebo> +1 keep it simple (knowing that it can be shifted)
16:58:48 <pgroth> q?
16:58:51 <pgroth> ack kai
16:58:53 <Curt> ... simply handles the recursion
16:59:12 <pgroth> by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them 
16:59:33 <smiles> +1
16:59:47 <tlebo> records are only a means of transmission. We only care about the content of the transmission.
16:59:50 <Curt> pgroth: trying to capture this -- james' proposal allows us to shift perspective, is that ok? is that sufficient guidance for luc?
16:59:53 <MacTed> see SKOS - containers of entities, which are containers of entities, which are containers...
17:00:03 <Curt> luc: yes, that and the emails 
17:00:16 <Zakim> -??P54
17:00:24 <tlebo> I'm at the top of the hour
17:00:26 <jcheney> OK with me (that's actually tlebo's wording, but I like it)
17:00:27 <MacTed> er, sorry, SIOC not SKOS
17:00:28 <kai> Don't make the mistake that in the end you can describe the provenance of everything, the only exception would be the provenance (records).
17:00:40 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:00:51 <Curt> pgroth: next few proposals need even more discussion
17:01:27 <pgroth> Proposal: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them
17:01:38 <tlebo> +1
17:01:42 <jcheney> +1
17:01:44 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #prov
17:02:03 <Curt> satya: what does "by default" mean?
17:02:10 <tlebo> "the current layers of the shift"
17:02:31 <Curt> pgroth: when you describe provenance, you use things like entities, derivations, etc. not records
17:02:38 <jcheney> I think it means that you can't infer that a record is in the domain of discourse.  You have to assert it.
17:02:40 <Zakim> -davidschaengold
17:02:56 <Curt> ... but if you want to describe prov-of-prov, you would (in some fashion) make the records into entities and use those
17:03:31 <satya> 0
17:03:35 <tlebo> If we argue for a third layer, we are not being compact and eloquent. And we could argue for the fourth, and fifth. It won't end.
17:03:35 <Curt> satya: decision not critical to move on
17:03:46 <Curt> pgroth: this is important for modeling 
17:03:54 <pgroth> q
17:03:56 <pgroth> q?
17:04:05 <jcheney> @satya: There is a difference between saying records "MAY" be in hte domain of discourse and records MUST be in the domain of discourse.
17:04:05 <kai> -1
17:04:10 <Luc> @tlebo: i dont think we would introudce more layers, but a "shift operator"
17:04:32 <Curt> kai: I can describe the provenance of data, not just things
17:04:54 <Curt> kai: provenance of data is itself data, so we can describe it the same way
17:05:11 <tlebo> @ speaker, because we already have what we need to discuss provenance (Entities)
17:05:25 <zednik> -1 (show concrete example before making modeling decision, not other way around)
17:05:29 <Curt> pgroth: we have "provenance records".  last week we said things in the UofD are identified
17:05:53 <Curt> ... if we say records are part of the UofD, then we have to give them identifiers -- that affects the modeling
17:06:04 <Curt> kai: what is the problem giving them an identifier?
17:06:16 <Curt> pgroth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers
17:06:32 <pgroth> entity(
17:06:55 <tlebo> (apologies)
17:06:59 <Curt> pgroth: is that in our UofD?
17:07:00 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:07:26 <satya> Sorry, I have to leave.
17:07:34 <Curt> kai: I can only describe identifiable things, so if we want to describe them, we have to identify them
17:07:57 <Curt> ... just a collection of statements might not have an identifier, so we'll have to identify them if we want to describe them
17:07:58 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
17:08:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:08:25 <Curt> pgroth: some agreement, but try different wording
17:08:27 <pgroth> records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse
17:08:30 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
17:08:52 <jcheney> is that at least clearer than "by default"?
17:09:11 <Curt> kai: I think records are in the UofD, but only if they have an identity
17:09:42 <Curt> kai: "every record that has its own identity is in the UofD"
17:10:06 <Curt> luc: we were using accounts to handle this, not every single record
17:10:25 <Curt> ... we weren't going to have provenance of other records
17:11:01 <Curt> ... if we revisit this, we need to change more of the data model.  we were previously only using accounts as a way to describe prov-of-prov
17:11:13 <Curt> ... are we questioning those decisions made 6 months ago?
17:11:39 <jcheney> It may not have been clear to everyone whether "records" included or excluded accounts in this discussion (it wasn't to me)
17:11:42 <Curt> ... the latest draft still says the only way to describe provenance itself is through accounts
17:12:07 <Curt> kai: something that has a URI, an identity, is something that exists.  why restrict how you can describe that thing?
17:12:34 <Curt> luc: we aren't considering resources in general, just the way we model those things in prov-dm
17:12:46 <MacTed> SIOC Ontology -- -- may save us reinventing many wheels....
17:12:57 <Curt> luc: are we making provenance records part of the UofD.  Can we represent prov. of accounts?
17:13:11 <MacTed> of particular use --
17:13:28 <Curt> ... are account records part of the UofD?
17:13:42 <Curt> kai: Is there a problem if that are not in the UofD?  
17:14:24 <Curt> luc: we are breaking early design decisions.  saying they are part of UofD, we say that all records have to have identifiers
17:14:43 <Curt> ... implications is every prov. record would have to have a named graph to give the set an identifier
17:15:02 <Curt> ... this is a radical departure to current work
17:15:08 <Curt> ^to^from
17:15:25 <Curt> luc: we need guidance on this
17:15:37 <Curt> kai: we can discuss at F2F
17:15:50 <Curt> ... we don't want to destroy current work
17:16:04 <Curt> ... we should be able to figure out something that works next week
17:16:34 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aaaa
17:16:50 <Curt> pgroth: kai isn't saying we have to have identifiers for everything, we don't have to have mint identifiers for every prov. record
17:17:03 <Curt> ... we can use that as preliminary guidance
17:17:33 <Curt> kai: yes, that is what I think, they CAN have an identifier, with that you can describe the records' provenance
17:17:43 <jcheney> That sounds like what I was trying to say.
17:17:47 <Curt> ... we should indicate that it is possible to describe prov-of-prov
17:18:02 <jcheney> Might be good to give a small meta-prov example like MacTed's in PROV-DM?
17:18:12 <Curt> kai: we are mostly in agreement -- just need to detail
17:18:13 <pgroth> q?
17:18:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
17:18:30 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:18:32 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc
17:18:33 <Zakim> -Luc
17:18:35 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:18:40 <Zakim> -kai
17:18:55 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
17:19:01 <pgroth> curt
17:19:04 <pgroth> I'll take care of it
17:19:06 <Curt> ok
17:19:07 <Curt> bye
17:19:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:19:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:19:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:19:46 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:19:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:19:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, tlebo, +1.518.633.aacc, MacTed, jcheney, davidschaengold, Satya_Sahoo, kai
17:19:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:19:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:19:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:19:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items