Chatlog 2012-02-03

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.

08:12:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
08:12:31 <RRSAgent> logging to
08:12:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
08:12:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
08:12:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
08:12:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
08:12:36 <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2012
08:12:40 <Stian> tlebo: we get the same
08:12:42 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
<pgroth> Guest: Ivan (ivan) Herman, W3C
<pgroth> Guest: Guus (guus) Schreiber, W3C RDF WG Chair
08:12:42 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM already started
08:12:47 <GK> GK has joined #prov
08:13:10 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
08:13:10 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
08:13:15 <kai> kai has joined #prov
08:13:17 <ivan> zakim, who is on the call
08:13:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', ivan
08:13:23 <ivan> zakim, who is on the call?
08:13:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P11
08:13:38 <ivan> is anybody on the call already?
08:13:40 <ivan> who is P11
08:13:42 <ivan> ?
08:13:46 <Luc> Agenda:
08:13:57 <tlebo> I don't know.
08:14:07 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
08:14:12 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo
08:14:27 <ivan> tlebo:  you are not on zakim, right?
08:14:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
08:15:01 <tlebo> it's 3:15 here
08:16:25 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, ??P11, in PROV_f2f()3:00AM
08:16:26 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
08:16:26 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.315.724.aaaa, [VrijeUni], tlebo, [IPcaller], +1.781.899.aabb, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, Ivan
08:16:49 <dgarijo> Luc: session on prov-dm
<pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm continued
<pgroth> Summary: A discussion was had about had around ISSUE 207 on where start and end times should occur in the model. No decision was taken.
08:16:52 <ivan> zakim, this is prov
08:16:52 <Zakim> ivan, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be prov".
08:17:02 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
08:17:03 <ivan> zakim, this will be prov
08:17:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 17 minutes ago
08:17:16 <dgarijo> ... would like a clarification on the prov-o resolution yesterday
08:17:31 <Stian> Zakim, start prov
08:17:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start prov', Stian
08:17:37 <dgarijo> ... prov-o team will have to remember that there are "concepts at risk"
08:17:52 <dgarijo> ... there is an issue around wasAsociatedWith
08:18:08 <dgarijo> ... whether the agent should be optional or not
08:18:26 <dgarijo> ... those issues are inserted in the document
08:18:34 <tlebo> (Can I get onto a skyper that is NOT the scribe?)
08:18:48 <dgarijo> ... there is no point trying to encode this into prov-o
08:19:13 <tlebo> Thanks, Khalid.
08:19:33 <Stian> Zakim, this is PROV_f2f
08:19:33 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f".
08:19:40 <Stian> Zakim, this is PROV_f2f()3:00AM
08:19:40 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f()3:00AM".
08:19:48 <Stian> future of AI..
08:19:51 <dgarijo> ... in this session we want to solve a number of issues flagged in the tracker
08:20:04 <dgarijo> ... in order to make some progress in the future version of the WD
08:20:07 <tlebo> (Tim hears now)
08:20:34 <dgarijo>
08:20:45 <dgarijo> ... issue 207
08:20:48 <Luc>
08:21:48 <dgarijo> ... when we talk about activities we say that there is a start event and an end event. The place holder with time is not with the event, but with the activity itself
08:21:57 <dgarijo> ... There is a bit of inconsistency
08:22:22 <dgarijo> ... can we move starttime with the start event
08:22:24 <GK> (This issue of start/end times is also alluded to in
08:22:39 <dgarijo> ... can we move start/end away from the activity?
08:22:48 <dgarijo> ... feedback?
08:23:12 <Luc> q?
08:23:14 <tlebo> q+
08:23:15 <dgarijo> ... prov-o team, is that a big change for the ontology?
08:23:15 <Stian> q+
08:23:39 <pgroth> q?
08:23:56 <dgarijo> tlebo: I like the proposal to make it consitent.
08:24:31 <dgarijo> ... concerned about people wanting to add this directly to the activity. Would it be possible to have both?
08:24:50 <ivan> q+ to refer to a minor issue on time
08:25:20 <dgarijo> luc: another example on scruffy vs not scruffy. From a data model view is not useful to have many placeholders for the same info
08:25:25 <ivan> ack tlebo 
08:25:31 <tlebo> +1 danger for inconsistency 
08:25:37 <dgarijo> ... risk for inconsistency
08:26:04 <dgarijo> ... is it just sintactic sugar?
08:26:29 <dgarijo> tlebo: it reduces query time. You are running to a lot of practical reasons
08:26:39 <Luc> q?
08:26:43 <smiles> q+
08:26:43 <tlebo> and bnodes don't consolidate across merges.
08:26:46 <Luc> ack stian
08:27:23 <dgarijo> stian: a destruction event would complete the cycle.
08:27:42 <dgarijo> ... activity and entity had start and end.
08:28:08 <dgarijo> ... it would be very good to relate these events
08:28:24 <dgarijo> ... without having necessarily to refer to time
08:28:38 <Luc> why not say   id a Activity, aStartEvent ... 
08:29:14 <GK> q+ to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used.  This convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology.
08:29:38 <dgarijo> khalid: has to be consistent. not having the notion of event would be a problem?
08:29:48 <Luc> q?
08:29:51 <dgarijo> ... it would be a simpler ontology
08:29:58 <tlebo> e.g.    :activity prov:hasStart [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ]; prov:hasEnd [ prov:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime ]
08:30:12 <pgroth> q+
08:30:41 <Luc> q?
08:30:45 <dgarijo> stian: if you want to associate anything extra to the event (how the time was measured) then you are not able to do so.
08:32:20 <GK> Hmmm... I'm sure PatH will do a spendid job, but isn't doing time out of scope for RDF group?
08:32:31 <dgarijo> ivan: 2 things: 1) this has been a discussion on the rdf group. What they come up with may be useful for you, so it might be good to postpone the resolution and reuse what they decide.
08:33:21 <dgarijo> ... 2) Good to know that the ??? document is coming up.
08:33:41 <dgarijo> ... someone in the rdf working group was reviewing the changes
08:34:11 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
08:34:22 <dgarijo> luc: would it be useful to share this feedback to the group?
08:34:26 <Luc> ack iv
08:34:26 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to refer to a minor issue on time
08:34:29 <dgarijo> ivan: no problem
08:34:52 <tlebo> e.g. 2 "scruff") :activity prov:hasStart "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; prov:hasEnd "2012-02-03T03:37:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
08:35:01 <kai> ivan: if you use xsd dates which you should, look at the new draft, not the old document.
08:35:04 <dgarijo> smiles: don't see a problem for having support for both types of provenance.
08:35:28 <Luc> q?
08:35:34 <Luc> ack sm
08:35:36 <GK> ack gk
08:35:36 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Can we separate the "proper" model from convenient "syntactic sugar"? I.e. formal model uses extra node, but "convenient" shortcut property used.  This
08:35:39 <Zakim> ... convenience property might be introduced only in the ontology.
08:35:44 <dgarijo> stian: having both makes interoperability difficult
08:35:55 <dgarijo> graham: +1 to simon's point
08:36:21 <ivan> -> Alex Hall's review of the XSD 1.1 and the influence on RDF
08:36:24 <Luc> ack gk
08:36:40 <dgarijo> ... having them in prov-o doesn't mean that they are in the dm
08:36:49 <Luc> q?
08:36:53 <Luc> ack pgr
08:36:57 <tlebo> +1 @pgroth, this truly does match our "qualified and unqualified" duality. "upgrade path"
08:37:17 <tlebo> I think that makes a lot of sense.
08:37:21 <dgarijo> paul: +1 to that: in the ontology you have qualified and unqualified properties. So it is essentially the same thing
08:38:09 <tlebo> it's how I wrote
08:38:15 <tlebo> (the "upgrade path")
08:38:29 <dgarijo> ivan: the separation between simple/complicated qualifications is not visible in the document
08:38:50 <dgarijo> ... it is not highlighted
08:38:57 <Luc> q?
08:38:57 <dgarijo> in the primer/prov-o
08:39:31 <Stian> but it's not that different from current syntax:   :activity prov:startedAt [ time:inXSDDateTime "2012-02-03T03:27:09-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; ] ;   - as compared to upgrading to qualifiedX your shorthand does not add much
08:40:10 <ivan> q+
08:40:20 <dgarijo> luc: so we keep start /end for activities but no events?
08:40:26 <jcheney> q+
08:40:36 <dgarijo> activities can refer to time or to events
08:41:02 <Luc> q?
08:42:01 <tlebo> +1 paul - the duality stays out of the DM, prov-o adds the duality (i.e. syntactic sugar)
08:42:07 <GK> PGroth: duality only in the ontology, not in the DM
08:42:09 <dgarijo> paul: the prov-o has a duality that the dm doesn't have 
08:42:12 <GK> +1 to paul
08:42:16 <pgroth> @tlebo agree
08:42:21 <tlebo> +1 @luc
08:42:29 <dgarijo> luc: for dm events have time and activities are related to events
08:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
08:44:09 <Luc> q?
08:44:24 <dgarijo> graham: give the basic voc and see how it evolves
08:44:33 <tlebo> @ivan, sorry, I meant prov:inXSDDateTime
08:44:34 <Luc> ack ivan
08:44:42 <khalidbelhajjame> do we need to have time at all in prov-dm, wouldn't the notion of event be enough?
08:44:45 <dgarijo> ivan: please don't use the 2006 WD of the ontology.
08:45:17 <dgarijo> @kahlid: the events (usage, for instance) have time..
08:45:17 <GK> ^^ == time ontology (?)
08:45:19 <Stian> is a start/end event in the universe of discourse?
08:45:26 <Stian> we'll clone the few things from time: we're currently using
08:45:28 <Luc> q?
08:45:30 <tlebo> @ivan, thanks, will mirror them into prov namespace.
08:46:06 <tlebo> @stain, YOU were using the 2006 time >:-{
08:46:20 <Stian> Yes! But it was a good placeholder!
08:46:24 <Stian> better than nothing at all
08:46:31 <dgarijo> jcheney: had some issues about events too. Would it be ok if we don't make any formal determinations until I solved those?
08:46:59 <Stian> @tlebo - will you do the job to update the OWL file? Should be almost just a search replace of &time;
08:47:13 <Luc> q?
08:47:13 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
08:47:16 <Luc> ack jc
08:47:27 <tlebo> @stian sure
08:47:29 <dgarijo> luc: not enough resolution
08:47:30 <Stian> thanks :)
08:48:31 <Stian> That's
08:48:41 <tlebo> @stian
08:49:50 <dgarijo> luc: wasStartedBy as a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith. Woudln't it better to have a start/end event?
08:50:14 <GK> q+ to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)?
08:50:15 <Luc> q?
08:50:32 <Stian> this starts sounding like Tim's "events are a kind of activity" argument - if agents can be associated with a start event, etc
08:51:21 <dgarijo> GK: Is event the right place to make the association? Event is more like a timestamp
08:51:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
08:52:07 <dgarijo> we had 4 types of events
08:53:28 <Stian> is it now not just 2 events? Creation and Destruction
08:53:29 <Luc> ack gk
08:53:29 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if start/end should be inherrent in an event or part of relation between event and some activity (or something)?
08:54:04 <dgarijo> khalid: disagrees with GK. The event type is the start of an activity. 
08:54:21 <Luc> q?
08:54:23 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
08:54:26 <Luc> ack khalid
08:54:29 <Stian> (far out there) if an activity was created (ie. started) - then that could have been caused by another activity (that of an agent)
08:54:41 <tlebo> q+
08:55:15 <dgarijo> tim: disagrees with wasStartedBy being a specialization of association
08:55:42 <dgarijo> ... starting an activity is like being responsible for it
08:56:16 <smiles> q+
08:56:32 <dgarijo> luc: we really don't have start and end of activities right now.
08:56:39 <Paolo> q+
08:56:41 <dgarijo> ... responsability is another topic
08:56:59 <dgarijo> ... I just didn't want to go there now.
08:57:23 <Luc> q?
08:57:27 <dgarijo> ... coming back to the original proposal, those records represent events
08:57:48 <dgarijo> tim: are we talking about agents or events starting the activity
08:57:52 <khalidbelhajjame> I think that there are two points here that we need to reflect on separatly: i)- do we need to encode the start/end of activities as events? ii)- do we still need to have wasStartedBy to specify that an egent was responsible for startng an activity
08:57:56 <pgroth> q?
08:58:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: wasstartedBY vs wasStartedAT
08:58:56 <dgarijo> ... people are confused by both.
08:58:58 <jcheney> what about just "started" and "ended"?
08:59:21 <Stian> (also far out) if Generation/Usage/Started/Ended are activities, then agents can be associated/responsible just like with other activities
08:59:33 <jcheney> you can name the agent in a "started" record, or not.
08:59:42 <Luc> q?
08:59:44 <Stian> jcheney: make sense
08:59:45 <Paolo> q?
08:59:51 <tlebo> q-
09:00:01 <Luc> ack smil
09:00:08 <dgarijo> smiles: +1 to tim and gk
09:00:40 <dgarijo> ... you don't want to attach the agent to the event
09:01:11 <jcheney> perhaps could define "wasStartedBy" as "evt was a start event for activity" and "agent was associated with evt"
09:01:15 <Paolo> +1 for smiles, GK however that leaves wasGeneratedBy as an anomaly -- that /does/ require a generator to be expressed
09:01:21 <jcheney> i think this = simon's proposal too
09:01:25 <Luc> q?
09:01:39 <dgarijo> paolo: agrees with smiles
09:01:48 <GK> q+ to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f. entity wasGeneratedBy activity)
09:01:59 <dgarijo> ... generation doesn't stand for itself
09:02:06 <dgarijo> ... you just need a generator
09:02:20 <jcheney> could decompose generation into "event created" and "activity performed event"
09:02:25 <Stian> there was a seperate proposal to allow wasGenerated() without activity (to record entity start time)
09:03:06 <dgarijo> luc: would the agent be optional
09:03:22 <tlebo> +1 keep them separate, let one assert either or both.
09:03:38 <ivan_> ivan_ has joined #prov
09:03:43 <Stian> (assuming we have destruction) - can an agent die before the activity start event - but still be responsible for starting?
09:04:39 <Stian> (I would argue yes)
09:04:41 <dgarijo> ivan: why make it simple if you can make it complicated?
09:05:13 <khalidbelhajjame> ?q
09:05:19 <khalidbelhajjame> q?
09:05:19 <Stian> q?
09:05:24 <Paolo> q-
09:05:26 <dgarijo> luc: issue not entirely finished yet
09:05:29 <GK> ack gk
09:05:29 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask are "events" things that are referenced explicitly by records, are they implicit (and used in the explanation of) relationships between other things (e.f.
09:05:32 <Zakim> ... entity wasGeneratedBy activity)
09:06:08 <dgarijo> GK: there is a confusing about where the events are situated in the dm
09:06:22 <Paolo> q+
09:06:42 <dgarijo> ... are events in the domain of discourse? or even the entities?
09:07:20 <Stian> diagram at
09:07:39 <Luc> q?
09:07:43 <Luc> ack pao
09:07:59 <dgarijo> paolo: start and end record and then the activity record
09:08:29 <dgarijo> ... you can't assert an activity record until the end of it
09:08:55 <pgroth> q?
09:08:59 <tlebo> q+ to say that adding all of the optionals will make it more difficult to map to prov-o (or anything)
09:08:59 <Stian> ig activities are entities, then start/end events are same for both. currently  wasGeneratedBy can say who started it - but currently says that the starter/creator was an activity (which is currently disjoint from agent)
09:09:11 <Stian> but why can activities only be created by agents, and entities only by activities?
09:09:50 <GK> FWIW, CIDOC CRM uses events to mediate between other things, and events are considered to have duration, not be instantaneous.  Just saying.
09:10:00 <Stian> If I create a document, as an agent I am (responsible for) generating it
09:10:20 <dgarijo> luc: we are talking about exchanging prov info, at the moment of exchange you know the traces.
09:10:44 <tlebo> -1 @paolo
09:11:12 <Luc> q?
09:11:40 <dgarijo> tim: problem with the optionals when doing the mappings to prov-o
09:11:49 <dgarijo> ... smaller constructs are easier
09:12:24 <GK> tlebo: for formal description, prefers more smaller constructs that can be linked together without optional bits.  (was that right?)
09:12:24 <tlebo> q-
09:12:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
09:12:47 <Stian> +1 tlebo
09:13:02 <dgarijo> luc: your proposal paolo, is not addressing our current issue.
09:13:23 <dgarijo> ... it is mantaining the inconsistency
09:13:39 <GK> @tlebo I think your point argues for making events explicit in the model.  Just saying.
09:13:41 <Stian> Stian: There are two kinds of optionals in DM - the "Don't know now" implied optional, and the "Not applicable" (null) optional - in mapping to OWL we would need to distinguish between these
09:14:12 <tlebo> @GK I'm ok with that. Generation and Usage are the events.
09:14:25 <dgarijo> luc: a start record is not a representation of an event
09:15:18 <dgarijo> ... something could argue about starting events not being on the data model
09:15:20 <pgroth> +q
09:15:25 <Stian> every entity has an (implied) generation event - but every activity does not (currently) have an implied started event
09:15:41 <dgarijo> ... geenration events are on de UoD and start events are not
09:15:53 <Luc> q?
09:15:54 <tlebo> q+ to propose startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time)   and wasStartedBy(activity, agent)
09:16:20 <Stian> tlebo: +1 - that's Simon's proposal
09:16:34 <dgarijo> jcheney: instead of startedBy say started
09:16:37 <tlebo> @stian, then +1 simon.
09:16:40 <Stian> if you say wasStartedBy - we know it was at startedAt
09:16:50 <Stian> tlebo: but do ask it :)
09:16:50 <dgarijo> ... combining the event and the agent
09:17:00 <Luc> q?
09:17:24 <Luc> ack kh
09:17:49 <dgarijo> khalid: what info should we attach to those events?
09:17:58 <Paolo> q?
09:18:02 <Paolo> q+
09:18:45 <Stian> .. and role etc
09:19:09 <dgarijo> ... when expressing event we attach the info necessary in that event
09:19:22 <Luc> q?
09:19:25 <dgarijo> ... that would make the model complex 
09:19:46 <tlebo> I see Khalid's argument for "inconsistent" treatment for the start/end and use/generation...
09:20:23 <Luc> q?
09:20:27 <GK> Good question, Khalid.  Don't know.
09:20:29 <tlebo> wondering if the "upgrade path" duality is going to surface soon.
09:20:31 <dgarijo> ... is it worth decoupling things or simplifying the concept by attaching optional things to use/generation.
09:20:33 <khalidbelhajjame> ack kha
09:20:37 <Luc> ack pg
09:20:52 <dgarijo> pg: nice summary.
09:21:19 <dgarijo> ... events are good to express what we have in the model
09:22:00 <tlebo> activity hadQualifiedStart would parallel event hadQualifiedGeneration
09:22:03 <dgarijo> ... do we need constructs of events to express our provenance?
09:22:07 <smiles> q+
09:22:08 <Stian> ie. are events in universal discourse or not
09:22:35 <tlebo> no construct with is ..... an event ?
09:22:40 <dgarijo> luc: currently there is no construct of an event.
09:22:53 <GK> q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
09:24:32 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
09:24:38 <Luc> q?
09:24:39 <Zakim> +??P0
09:24:44 <Zakim> -??P0
09:24:45 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
09:24:45 <Zakim> Attendees were 
09:24:51 <Luc> q?
09:24:57 <dgarijo> luc: this issue is stil not finiched
09:24:58 <tlebo> hey!
09:25:07 <Stian> Evil zakim!
09:25:08 <GK> q+ to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
09:25:24 <Stian> perhaps in that little minute we had our chance to call in to zakim
09:25:38 <tlebo> startedAt(activity, time) + endedAt(activity, time) and wasStartedBy(activity, agent)
09:25:49 <dgarijo> tlebo: higlight the distinction of wasstartedBy (agent), and wasStartedAt(time).
09:26:00 <dgarijo> ... this events are already modeled
09:26:11 <jcheney> And we were already considering renaming "QualifiedInvolvement" to "Event"...
09:26:11 <dgarijo> ... through the qualifiedInvolvement.
09:26:33 <dgarijo> ... by modeled is in the ontology.
09:26:50 <dgarijo> ... generation and usage are qualifiedInvolvement
09:27:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: notion of transforming qualifiedInvolvement to Event
09:27:47 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
09:27:48 <dgarijo> smiles: disagreed with tim
09:27:53 <Zakim> +??P0
09:28:23 <dgarijo> ... it is just to describe the relationship, not the event.
09:28:44 <dgarijo> ... proposes to separate wasStartedAt and wasStartedBy
09:29:03 <dgarijo> khalid: would the agent be optional in wasStartedAt
09:29:28 <Stian> so say prov:hadRole on an event is a bit strange.. did the event play a role? I thought the event was what happened when someone assumed the role
09:29:29 <Luc> q?
09:29:37 <Stian> I think QualifiedInvolvement could have duration
09:29:41 <Stian> for instance Usage
09:29:52 <Stian> I used the encyclopedia entity from 14:45 to 15:15
09:30:02 <Stian> and at 15:00 I generated the report
09:30:42 <Luc> q?
09:30:42 <Stian> 1~but that took me from 14:50 till 15:00
09:30:45 <GK> ack gk
09:30:45 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to respond to paul: we don't *need* new constructs - can can get by without them - but is it *easier* to describe/understand by introducing the extra concepts.
09:30:55 <tlebo> zakim!
09:31:08 <Paolo> q?
09:31:11 <Paolo> q+
09:31:23 <dgarijo> GK: do we need these new constructs? I don't think so
09:31:56 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
09:32:02 <dgarijo> we shouldn't change the current model unless we do have a clear use case
09:32:18 <dgarijo> luc: but what is it in the dm?
09:32:46 <dgarijo> gk: events are not surfaced as part of the dm, just as an explanation
09:33:12 <Stian> formally the events have partial ordering which is defined in constraints - like usage time of entity >= generation time
09:34:01 <Luc> q?
09:34:01 <tlebo> over taken by Activities.
09:35:04 <jun> jun has joined #prov
09:35:06 <dgarijo> paolo: activities begin and end
09:35:15 <dgarijo> ... what do you say about entity?
09:36:05 <dgarijo> ... if you ad the generatedBy and generatedAt you restore part of the consistency
09:36:19 <Luc> q?
09:36:23 <Luc> ack paolo
09:37:14 <Paolo> hi Jun!
09:37:44 <Stian> jun: our zakim bridge has gone bad .. do you want to skype in?
09:37:50 <dgarijo> pgroth: the only issue is that we want some sort simetry/consistency across the model
09:37:55 <Luc> q?
09:38:18 <dgarijo> luc: last part of the issue
09:38:24 <pgroth> or jun are you on the bridge?
09:38:37 <Stian> Zakim, who is on the phone?
09:38:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0
09:38:47 <dgarijo> ... something was started by something which is not clearly an agent
09:39:01 <Zakim> -??P0
09:39:02 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
09:39:02 <Zakim> Attendees were 
09:39:02 <smiles> Just to say, I dont think my proposal implies any need for change in the ontology, as long as we dont interpret qualifiedinvolvement as an event
09:39:32 <Stian> Zakim, list conferences
09:39:32 <Zakim> I see no active conferences
09:39:34 <Zakim> scheduled at this time is PROV_f2f()3:00AM
09:39:40 <Stian> zakim, this is PROV_f2f
09:39:40 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV_f2f".
09:39:53 <Stian> zakim, this is PROV
09:39:53 <Zakim> Stian, I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be PROV".
09:39:54 <tlebo> @smiles, can QualifiedInvolvment be a superclass of event?
09:39:56 <Stian> zakim, this is bob
09:39:56 <Zakim> sorry, Stian, I do not see a conference named 'bob' in progress or scheduled at this time
09:40:10 <dgarijo> ... a coment that starts an activity
09:40:26 <dgarijo> ... the presence of an entity that started the activity
09:40:37 <dgarijo> ... we can't express that
09:40:44 <dgarijo> ... it is a limitation
09:41:00 <pgroth> zakim, this with be PROV_f2f()
09:41:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this with be PROV_f2f()', pgroth
09:41:17 <tlebo> #zakim #irc #prov #humor from @stian
09:41:22 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
09:41:22 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see PROV_f2f()3:00AM scheduled to start 101 minutes ago
09:41:38 <tlebo> entities cause activities
09:41:55 <tlebo> (luc think people will want to say it)
09:42:05 <smiles> @tlebo that doesnt seem intuitive to me. I would think the event is 'in' the relation between qualifiedinvolvement and timestamp, but not an explicit class
09:42:24 <dgarijo> +q
09:42:44 <Luc> q?
09:42:46 <tlebo> @smiles, the QualifiedInvolvement is the reification (shhh!), so the timestamp on that _is_ in the relation.
09:42:49 <Luc> ack dg
09:43:05 <Stian> moving many of these shortcuts away from formal model means that their granularity might disappear from the provenance exchange
09:43:13 <Stian> then something automatically becomes exapnded in DM
09:43:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
09:43:40 <Luc> q?
09:44:04 <tlebo> what are we converging to?
09:44:30 <jcheney> Can we identify some next actions and move on?
09:44:31 <dgarijo> dgarijo: agents are entities in the end, so we could see that the wasStartedBy allways as startedBy an entity
09:44:39 <smiles> @tlebo not sure i quite understand, but i think that matches what i was saying - we are reifying the relationship to say more about it, but the event is only one thing you might say about it...
09:45:01 <jcheney> We are arguing with phantoms, need concrete proposals first.
09:45:07 <GK> q+ to say this worries me a little because it seems to remove one of the core concepts from OPMV, which AFAICT is a fairly minimal provenance core based in real-world modelling experience
09:45:10 <Luc> q?
09:45:40 <dgarijo> khalid: we are using the same relationship for 2 different things
09:46:07 <dgarijo> ... control ordering, it is more like triggering the activity
09:46:16 <GK> Khalid: startedBy vs triggered?
09:46:35 <Luc> q?
09:46:42 <Luc> ack kha
09:46:55 <dgarijo> ... it would be less confusing if we had another relationship for this instead of the same
09:47:18 <tlebo> @smiles, I see what you're saying.
09:47:53 <tlebo> can anyone summarize what is going on?
09:47:56 <dgarijo> GK: It's a clever trick, but I'm a bit worried about. We might be losing some information.
09:48:30 <dgarijo> luc: in OPM you couldn't express the provenance of Agents.
09:48:46 <dgarijo> ... it was a fundamental shortcoming of that model
09:48:57 <tlebo> luc: important that Agents be Entities so we can describe them.
09:49:18 <tlebo> topic - Letting Entities make stuff happen (i.e., be Agents)
09:49:33 <dgarijo> pgroth: GK wants agents to have responsability
09:49:47 <dgarijo> ... or osmething
09:50:13 <tlebo> so we already have Entity wasDerivedFrom Entity. But we're now looking at Activities being caused by Entities?
09:50:41 <tlebo> e.g. "The" email that caused the flurry thread of email responses.
09:51:00 <dgarijo> ... wasStartedBy has a connotation of agency, and if we removed that we still have this connotation
09:51:12 <Stian> wasTriggeredBy or wasStartedBecauseOfThePresenceOf (ugggu) is more the passive started usecase we are talking about
09:51:32 <tlebo> are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity?
09:51:39 <Luc> q?
09:51:40 <tlebo> q+ to ask are we just defining a subclass of Activity that are those that generate entities derived from the specified Entity?
09:51:50 <khalidbelhajjame> How about wasEventuallyStartedBy :-)
09:51:50 <GK> q-
09:51:55 <Luc> ack gk
09:53:22 <Stian> mmm... it's a kind of activity derivation, is it not.. "wasCausedBy"
09:53:28 <dgarijo> tim: clarification about the topic
09:53:51 <dgarijo> luc: maybe it is a corner case..
09:54:29 <dgarijo> tim: you want to associate that entity to some the activities that used it? 
09:54:37 <pgroth> signature is: wasStartedBy(Agent)
09:54:44 <dgarijo> luc: anything that started an activity is an agent
09:54:46 <Stian> and making an email an agent (and giving it responsibility) does sound quite far out
09:54:56 <pgroth> thus you infer the email as agent
09:55:03 <GK> Or -  there exists an activity that used the email and was initiated by some agent
09:55:09 <dgarijo> ... so in this use case we would have the email as an agent
09:55:35 <jcheney> issue-207??
09:56:19 <dgarijo> luc: issue: agent should be asserted and not inferred.
09:56:22 <jcheney> issue-206??
09:56:40 <Stian> yes - is related
09:56:50 <GK> Hmmm... can we separate all the inference stuff from the basic data model definition?
09:57:05 <dgarijo> luc: wrap up: we don't have a proposal on the table right now.
09:57:31 <Stian> if we can't agree - we propose strip/remove.  Removing the agent-constraint is a kind of removal. 
09:57:39 <dgarijo> ... wasStartedBy between an activity and an Entity instead of an Agent, but there is not enough consensus.
09:57:48 <GK> @stian +1
09:58:11 <dgarijo> ... if we do it, it is not a specialization of an association
09:58:20 <dgarijo> ... it is not clear.
09:58:26 <Stian> @luc: +1 - wasAssociatedWith to stay as responsibility and agent
09:58:33 <GK> @stian I think this leads back to Paul's "trick", but keeping the notion of agency in the model.
09:58:41 <dgarijo> ... the other proposal is that we don't make any change.
09:59:24 <dgarijo> ... consequence: the email is regarded as an agent in the data model, which is not very "natural".
10:01:13 <Stian> @GK which 'this'..? :)
10:01:50 <GK> @stian this == "strip/remove" the bits we don't agree about
10:02:15 <GK> Why is this linked to startedBy not being a subproperty of wasAssociatedWith?
10:02:27 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
10:02:34 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
10:02:35 <Zakim> Attendees were 
10:02:42 <Stian> @GK but is it not confusing if we have a semantic constrain in the DM, but don't reflect that in the PROV-O? Then you can express things n PROV-O that don't map (easily) to PROV-DM. 
10:02:45 <Stian> zakim is drunk
10:04:04 <stephenc> (I think that outburst from zakim was caused by me connecting to voip, and being the 1st participant, and hanging up)
10:04:25 <tlebo> how long is this break?
10:04:32 <pgroth> 10 minutes
10:04:35 <tlebo> thx
10:04:39 <pgroth> maybe 15 minutes
10:05:31 <tlebo> what about causedBy ?
10:06:09 <tlebo> Event wasDerivedFrom Event
10:06:14 <tlebo> ack!
10:06:22 <tlebo> s/Event/Entity/
10:06:23 <pgroth> no way
10:06:41 <tlebo> Activity wasCausedBy Email 
10:06:54 <tlebo> Activity wasStartedBy EvilDoer
10:14:48 <tlebo> @sandro hi!
10:14:56 <tlebo> i'm no Skype now.
10:15:01 <tlebo> zakim didn't like me this morning.
10:16:24 <tlebo> zakim, why aren't you answering your phone?
10:16:24 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tlebo.
10:20:44 <sandro> Zakim, what is the code?
10:20:44 <Zakim> the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, sandro
10:20:50 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has now started
10:20:57 <Zakim> +Sandro
10:21:00 <tlebo> @jcheney, I can't open
10:21:29 <tlebo> page says application/zip, but .pdf which is it?
10:23:15 <ivan_> zakim, this is prov
10:23:15 <Zakim> ivan_, this was already PROV_f2f()3:00AM
10:23:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan_; that matches PROV_f2f()3:00AM
10:23:50 <sandro> ivan_, are you folks calling in to Zakim now?
10:23:51 <Zakim> +??P1
10:23:57 <Luc> q?
10:24:15 <Zakim> +tlebo
10:24:26 <jcheney> Oops, uploaded keynote source.  Should work now.
10:24:35 <tlebo> Hi, zakim!
10:24:45 <tlebo> Zakim, did you miss us?
10:24:45 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tlebo.
10:24:48 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aaaa
10:24:56 <pgroth> we have moved to zakim
10:26:21 <Paolo> Jun are you on Zakim?
10:26:31 <Stian> zakim, who is on the phone?
10:26:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa
10:26:35 <Paolo> zakim, who is on the phone?
10:26:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, ??P1, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa
10:26:51 <jcheney> slides at:
10:27:26 <khalidbelhajjame> Topic: prov-sem
<pgroth> Summary: James presented a strawman proposal for a formal semantics of provenance. The group positively recieved the proposal and agreed to make it a deliverable of the project. The prov-sem was seen a mechanism to to encode proper provenance. Additionally, he presented the ProvRDF mappings page that provides a systematic means to map prov-dm to prov-o.  
10:27:33 <Luc> q?
10:27:33 <pgroth> q?
10:27:36 <pgroth> slide 2
10:27:59 <tlebo> (btw, can't open the slides. Press on)
10:28:25 <Stian> works in chrome
10:29:01 <pgroth> slide 3
10:29:03 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we need to be careful about the features that we include 
10:29:19 <tlebo> thx, have it in chrome
10:29:40 <pgroth> slide 4
10:30:02 <Stian> sandro: ;')
10:30:39 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we have high level contructs, that can be used by people, vs. complex (and risk) approach
10:30:48 <Stian> I like this comparison.. PROV-DM ~= CISC  - PROV-O ~= RISC
10:31:08 <GK> I'm not sure the scruffy/proper axis is quite like CISC/RISC axis
10:31:22 <pgroth> slide 5
10:31:31 <tlebo> I would reverse the RISC analogy
10:32:27 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: approach: formally specifying the meaning of prov-dm, which can then facilitate the maping from prov-dm to prov-o
10:32:34 <Stian> @tlebo, elaborate (briefly!)
10:33:30 <tlebo> scruffies want fewer constructs for the common cases - RISC
10:33:37 <Stian> we've got many 'instructions' in DM, O has fewer instructions that can be used/combined to do (most of) what you do in DM
10:33:41 <Stian> I agree
10:33:46 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the benefit is that we can systematically map prov-dm to prov-o
10:33:50 <GK> I see RDF vs PROV-DM like RISC vs CISC.  Either can be scruffy or proper.  IMHO
10:34:01 <pgroth> slide 6
10:34:24 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: what is the goal of the formal semantics?
10:34:39 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: What are the metrics?
10:34:45 <tlebo> test cases!
10:34:51 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: what process can be used for reconciling mismatches
10:35:35 <Luc> q?
10:35:54 <jcheney>
10:36:16 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: there has been some changes
10:36:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: prov-dm assertions are seen as formula
10:37:04 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: prov-dm instance is seen as conjunction of formula
10:38:00 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: terminology-wise, I use world as opposed to model to avoid confusion
10:38:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I speak about identifiers as variables in a logical formula
10:39:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I assume that there is a set of time instances that can be partially or totally ordered
10:39:11 <GK> @jcheyney re identifiers.  Suggest s/(or blank nodes in RDF)/(or nodes in RDF)/
10:39:33 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am also using intervals of time
10:40:14 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am agnostic about what values are and what attributes are
10:40:42 <pgroth> in section formulas
10:40:57 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: A subset of records in prov-dm are represented as formulas
10:41:19 <tlebo>
10:41:30 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: there are two kinds of formulas: element_ and relation_formula
10:41:48 <pgroth> section worlds
10:44:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: There are three layers: Things, Objects, Syntax 
10:44:59 <pgroth> no khalidbelhajjame 
10:45:07 <pgroth> Things, Social, Syntax
10:46:01 <tlebo>
10:46:40 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Things have a life time and attributes that can change over time
10:46:52 <Stian> (jcheney just updated formula of #things to talk about Things rather than Objects)
10:47:50 <tlebo> ^^ rdf:type prov:Account .
10:48:07 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: example: thing can change color over tme, e.g., from blue to red
10:48:48 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: It is possible to have two things that have the same attributes and attribute values
10:49:03 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: and have the same lifetime
10:49:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian: are you distinguishing between known and unkniown attributes
10:50:04 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I am not saying anything about that
10:50:58 <pgroth> q?
10:51:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Things may not be distinguishable by anything other than their identity
10:51:45 <Stian> @jcheney: This is good stuff
10:51:46 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Entities, Activities and Agenets are seen as Objects
10:52:12 <tlebo> ?
10:52:22 <pgroth> Objects
10:52:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: An entity is a representation of a thing during an interval
10:53:05 <Stian> (jcheney removed "of things" in "a set Objects of things" under #Objects)
10:53:41 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: The difference between things and entities is the time dependency
10:53:56 <pgroth> highlighting entities 
10:54:21 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: what's the reason between the distinction between entities and objects?
10:54:34 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: That's what the DM says
10:54:41 <Stian> YESSSS
10:55:29 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: activities and entities are disjoint
10:55:53 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the difference between the thing and object is there because it is in the DM
10:56:01 <GK> For the purpose of formalizing prov-dm (as is), is it important to have     "lifetime : Things -> Intervals"  ?
10:56:12 <Stian> the difference between *entity* and *object*
10:56:20 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the grouping of entities, activities and agent under object is there for typing purposes
10:57:17 <pgroth> in section Activities
10:58:16 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: a given object does not necessarily have values for all attributes
10:58:26 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: some values stand for missing
10:58:45 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I d rather go through the basics rather than trying to discuss everything
11:00:25 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: because we separate things that varies from entities that are (fixed), we have a function that map the two
11:01:07 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney:  examples: three entities can describe the same entity with possibly overlapping intervals
11:01:15 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: events
11:01:39 <Stian> Activity disjoint from Entity prevents an Activity using/generating/etc another Activity, etc (so you can't say :discussing a prov:Activity .   :scribing a prov:Activity, prov:used :discussing  ) - you will need to make the entity :discussion (which is... generated by :discussing?) 
11:01:51 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity is an object that comrises a set of events
11:02:29 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity is related to a collection of events
11:02:52 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Events is a subset of Objects
11:03:16 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an event relates an activity to an entity
11:03:29 <dgarijo> @Stian: the phantom entity!
11:03:33 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an event is associated with a time
11:04:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: events can be ordered based on the times associated with them
11:04:14 <tlebo> ?
11:04:23 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: start and end of activities are events
11:04:24 <GK> This makes me realize my earlier focus of (some) discussion on "domain of discourse" wasn't quite right...
11:05:09 <GK> @tlebo yes, I think so
11:05:18 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: Used relates an event to an entity
11:06:00 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: to keep track of the different uses, we are associating the entity with the event
11:06:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the "use" event
11:13:14 <Stian> @Paolo +1  (and that's why perhaps 'destruction' is wrong term)
11:13:15 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: the disctuction of an entity does not means the disctuction of the tghing, but possibly thhe modification of the value of one of its attributes
11:13:16 <pgroth> Section Semantics
11:13:28 <Stian> it's more 'end of characterisation' - which in some cases could be end of the thing
11:13:44 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the identifiers are interpreted as objects not as things
11:14:11 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: multiple identifiers may refer to the same object
11:14:16 <Stian> so the identifier is an activity, entity, event or perhaps something else
11:14:48 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the identifiers are identifiers of descriptions as opposed to identifiers of things?
11:14:58 <Stian> it's more like the identifier of objects in the universe of discourse
11:15:34 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: yes, but I am not super-comfortable with it !
11:16:09 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: would use of perspective instead of description
11:17:46 <pgroth> in section satisfaction
11:17:50 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: for each formula, we define relationships that says that a given formula is satisfied in a given world, given an interpretation
11:18:01 <GK> Interesting... I always read |= as "entails" (as opposed to "models")
11:18:16 <Stian> did Objects require there to be at least 1 attribute - or just that the function gives those attributes which "Don't change?". I think the second - then easily all things can be objects
11:18:29 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: a conjuctions of formulas holds if the constituent formulas holds individually
11:19:43 <tlebo>
11:19:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Entity Records section
11:20:55 <Stian> @GK - well our world here is within the view of one particular account
11:22:04 <Stian> and this means that entity records with the same ID (but different attribs) are mapped in the same space (which I think is intention of DM)
11:22:13 <tlebo> the scruffies tend to name (and reference) Things, not Entities.
11:22:33 <khalidbelhajjame> Activity Records section
11:23:28 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: an activity has a plan, and has a start and end times, which are literals
11:23:34 <tlebo> (or, the broadest Entity that mirrors the Thing to the largest interval....)
11:23:51 <GK> @stian ... er, yes, but I'm not sure of the motivation for this observation.  I was just trying to point out that this semantics was enforcing a certain level of invariance.
11:24:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Generation section
11:25:01 <Stian> sorry - what is the obj here?
11:25:38 <Stian> ah -it should be in Entities - right
11:27:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Spezialization section
11:28:20 <tlebo> please don't collapse to owl:sameAs.
11:28:31 <Stian> @GK that's what our model says - if someone abuses the model then they can't expect the formal semantics to still work - in fact that they don't work should be a good hint to them that they've done something too scruffy
11:29:06 <GK> @stian indeed...
11:30:39 <stephenc> Is specializationOf reflexive? I think it needs to be stated whether or not (here and in prov-dm).
11:31:56 <pgroth> q?
11:32:00 <GK> IMO, this definition of specialization actually allows us to let the DM define a "scruffy" usage, and then sets out the conditions under which the provenance can be combined in ways that we might want/expect to do....
11:32:26 <GK> ... i.e. we can eliminate the thing/entity distinction in DM, but still keep this semantic model.
11:33:17 <Stian> .... and in some cases the two physical things could be the same entity?  ("The north-facing traffic light in StreetA crossing StreetB is red")
11:34:03 <Paolo> @ stephenc: I think it should be stated it is reflexive
11:35:50 <pgroth> q?
11:35:57 <Stian> @stephenc reflexive is allowed here and implied because if 'if and only if'. 
11:36:04 <Stian> s/if/of/
11:36:19 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: we could made the chances to collapse the distinction between things and entities, we map the entities to the semantics. This may give us the (formal) behaviour taht we want
11:37:05 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the objective is to see if prov-sem is a good, and to specify the kinds of interactions that prov-sem can have with other documents
11:37:10 <pgroth> last slide
11:37:11 <GK> I think DM can describe both PropP and ScrufP (proper and scruffy provenance), and the semantics then tells us when the expressions can be treated formally as PropP.
11:37:12 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: last slide
11:37:36 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney:  plan for next weeks, have something that we can show to other people, e.G., in Dagsthul
11:38:04 <GK> The upside for us... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
11:38:18 <ivan> q+
11:38:28 <Stian> @GK +10
11:38:45 <pgroth> ack gk
11:38:49 <pgroth> ack ivan
11:40:05 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan:the formal sem can be used to check if what is described (makes sense?)
11:40:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: OWL can be used to infer things (facts)
11:40:50 <Paolo> q+
11:40:52 <Paolo> q?
11:41:10 <kai> q+
11:41:12 <stephenc> @Stian, @Paolo It seems to depend on reflexivity of "contained in" in condition (3).  In prov-dm, I think it is still ambiguous, although I think Paolo and GK discussed it on mailing list and agreed.
11:41:54 <GK> q+ to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
11:42:08 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: we may want to think about if prov-sem can hep in identifying inference rules in prov-dm or prov-o
11:42:20 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: I have not written that yet
11:42:50 <Luc> q?
11:42:53 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: to the outside world we need to clarify that, and we need to use a different world than semantics
11:42:56 <pgroth> ace paolo
11:42:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo 
11:43:08 <ivan> s/, and/, or/
11:43:16 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: there are constraints in DM that can be used to generate new assertions
11:43:24 <pgroth> ack kai
11:43:45 <khalidbelhajjame> Kai: in the dublin work, we have a work on use of OWL to check
11:45:27 <pgroth> ack gk
11:45:27 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say... the DM can be radically simplified by deferring to this semantics for much of its formal content.
11:45:48 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: prov-sem can help us in simplifying the model
11:46:15 <Stian> ... but then we need to make it a REQ, right?
11:46:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: and by having prov-sem, we can tell to people this is what it actuall means. In other words, use prov-dm as a tool
11:47:00 <pgroth> q+ guus
11:47:04 <tlebo> are we going to discuss ?
11:47:07 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: prov-sem is a tool that allow us to explore the possibilities
11:47:25 <Stian> (PROV-SM could be made into an appendix to PROV-DM)
11:47:36 <tlebo> q?
11:47:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: it can also be used to avoid having things in prov-dm that can be clearly defined using prov-sem
11:47:59 <jcheney> @tlebo: I think we will look at ProvRDF after lunch, sorry
11:48:20 <dgarijo> grama?
11:48:25 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: introduces guus, the chair of RDF working group
11:48:28 <tlebo> @jcheney, after lunch is fine. I just wanted to know if it was on the agenda.
11:49:01 <khalidbelhajjame> Guus: for the semantics, we only went for things that we actually are sure are used, and tried to keep is simple
11:49:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Guus: maybe you can take a look when at how we specified SKOS semantics, that can be helpful
11:50:20 <tlebo>
11:50:21 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: there are some issues that we are in prov wg are interested in having feedback from the rdf working group
11:50:28 <dgarijo>
11:50:50 <tlebo> 40 minute break?
11:52:02 <pgroth> yes
11:52:10 <pgroth> breaking until 1:30 our time
11:53:01 <Zakim> -Sandro
12:11:25 <kai> kai has joined #prov
12:30:11 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
12:31:59 <sandro> it's time, yes?
12:32:31 <tlebo> I think so
12:33:24 <sandro> zakim, what is the code?
12:33:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 77683 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, sandro
12:33:33 <Zakim> +Sandro
12:35:38 <kai> kai has joined #prov
12:36:03 <khalidbelhajjame> Topic: Interoperability
<pgroth> Summary: The discussion focused on interoprability of implementations and how the group would demonstrate interoprability. Guus suggested we look at the skos approach to demonstrating interoprability. A survey was taken of the group about who was planning on implementing the spec. 8 people said they had plans or were already under way. It was agreed that we would take a dual approach to demonstrating interoprability. One would be a survey of implementations that shows that every concept is used in at least two different implementations (like skos). The second would be to identify pairs of implementations that can excahnge provenance. The implementation task force would be activated to begin building test harnesses based on the examples cataloged by Tim.
12:36:13 <Luc> q?
12:36:16 <GK> GK has joined #prov
12:36:18 <Luc> ack guus
12:36:39 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: who is implementing the specs?
12:36:57 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian, smiles:, Paul, Luc
12:37:02 <jcheney> +0.5
12:37:08 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham also
12:37:52 <pgroth> export functionality from workflow systems
12:37:57 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian: workflow provenance export from Taverna
12:37:57 <pgroth> (wings, taverna)
12:38:06 <GK> (I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics.)
12:38:07 <khalidbelhajjame> kai: Dublin
12:38:08 <khalidbelhajjame> core
12:38:28 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: standalone library 
12:38:53 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: implementing history of changes in wiki
12:39:21 <stephenc> We plan to use on open data projects - but initially at least it will be mapping from OPMV
12:39:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: datalog interpretation of prov-dm
12:40:17 <tlebo> My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs.
12:40:18 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: I'm expecting to implement code that reads and analyzes provenance information that is conformant with the model and semantics in the context of workflows and data quality
12:40:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the use of prov in the context of smart energy management systems
12:41:07 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
12:41:21 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: and scientific environment for editorial activities
12:41:51 <Luc> q?
12:42:15 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: tracking data preparation procedures that are done on teh command line
12:43:34 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: two independent impelmentations that interoperatte?
12:43:40 <GK> Interop - one implementation generates/writes, another reads/uses
12:43:47 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: we need to talk about skos
12:44:40 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: after recommendation, the next thing is to who that the 'thing' is implementable 
12:44:58 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: you have an API for javascript, and hope there are 2 or more implementations
12:45:24 <Stian> perhaps what we are weak on is *consuming* provenance
12:45:49 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: for thinsg like provenance, it is not clear, and it is up to the group to decide what it means to have interoperable implementations
12:45:55 <ivan> -> SKOS implementation report
12:46:00 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: in the case for skos for examples:
12:47:34 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: the criteria themeselves are not subject to public review
12:48:52 <Stian> several terms here are not used by anything, collection, mappingRelation, member, memberList, xl:label, ..
12:49:32 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: for every contruct in the vocabulary, they showed in skos, the implementations that made use of that construct
12:49:41 <sandro> q+ to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented
12:50:49 <tlebo> My implementations: 1) switching from PML to prov-o for my tabular RDF converter, csv2rdf4lod 2) capturing provenance in a Linked Data evaluation framework, DataFAQs.
12:51:06 <jcheney> q+
12:51:18 <Stian> Taverna-PROV-O is using it as RDF/XML, but not really linked data as it generates new (non-dereferencable) URIs for pretty much everything  (more like a file format)
12:51:40 <pgroth> +q
12:52:06 <tlebo> dereferencing all over my stuff :-)
12:52:39 <pgroth> ack sandro
12:52:39 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask how this passed with Collection not implemented
12:52:40 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: it is preferable to have people who are not part of the wg, who implemented the model
12:52:57 <Stian> no - the SKOS issues there are used to track what was posted about the implementations
12:53:22 <khalidbelhajjame> sandro: there are some contructs in skos that were not implenented by anybody, or very few
12:54:12 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: vocabularies?
12:54:16 <pgroth> ack jcheney
12:54:33 <tlebo> so, a "data application"
12:54:38 <Stian> Remember SKOS is meant to be used by/for vocabularies
12:54:45 <Stian> PROV is not
12:54:55 <tlebo> "Vocabulary": instance data using the skos vocab.
12:54:56 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: vocabularies: a pile of vocabulary somewhere, services ?
12:55:09 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: for example, a service that check the quality
12:55:26 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: application is something used by people
12:56:37 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what it mean to have interoperability? I can take prov xml and output prov rdf?
12:56:54 <sandro> producers and consumers, yes.
12:57:19 <khalidbelhajjame> graham: one impl generates statments, and another implementation that use and make sense of the thing output by the first impl
12:57:27 <tlebo> X out of Y functions that Tool T can do IS DONE based on the provenance provided by Tool S
12:57:55 <khalidbelhajjame> graham: not necessarily two impl from the same domain
12:58:03 <sandro> q+ 
12:58:07 <pgroth> ack pgroth
12:58:19 <Luc> q?
12:58:23 <khalidbelhajjame> paolo: how do you ensure that the interpretation is doen correctly?
12:58:24 <ivan> ack sandro 
12:59:22 <khalidbelhajjame> sandro: you can have test suite that is used seperatly with the consumer and producer for propvenance, you don't have to have direct interoperability between two implementations
12:59:48 <sandro> too quiet
13:00:00 <tlebo> khalid: ??
13:00:06 <Stian> for instance - a REST service in Taverna could use PAQ to also ask for the provenance of the retrieved resource (which would need to come from a second implementation), and link retrieved entities to the workflow entities in its exported provenance. But how would that be measured? 
13:00:42 <GK> I think the test suite approach works for features like inferences in consumers, but I'm not sure it applies to basic exchange.
13:01:02 <Stian> In Provenance Challenge there was a set of queries you should be able to answer
13:01:03 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: I don't understand how test suite can help in our case
13:01:22 <sandro> q+ 
13:01:53 <Stian> say an implementation only exports wasDerivedFrom() records - then we need a derivation-query
13:02:28 <pgroth> q+
13:02:43 <ivan> ack sandro 
13:02:46 <GK> Sandro's test case matches my consumer case (above), but doesn't test the producer.
13:04:11 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: all they did in skos it show that the vocabulary is used and the applications that make use of it 
13:04:20 <Stian> but how do you know the different implementations actually interpreted the standard in an interoperable way?
13:04:48 <Stian> +1 sandro
13:05:15 <GK> Trouble is, SKOS have a very weak notion of correctness.
13:05:17 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what is the test suite for vocabulary
13:05:27 <tlebo> We could start with examples that cover the constructs....
13:05:50 <GK> @Paul +1
13:05:52 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: if we have inferences, then it make sense to have test suite
13:06:11 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
13:06:15 <Paolo> q+
13:06:17 <sandro> sandro: you probably cant test a vocab, so maybe build some scaffolding for each use case to test implementation of those use cases
13:06:26 <pgroth> q?
13:06:28 <tlebo> pointers to real-world instance data and services?
13:06:30 <pgroth> ack pgroth
13:07:04 <sandro>
13:07:06 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
13:07:13 <tlebo> interoperability - the minimal amount that you need to agree upon so that you don't need to agree to anything more.
13:07:42 <Luc> Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). 
13:07:44 <GK> "There is no requirement that a Working Draft have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Candidate Recommendation" --
13:07:49 <Luc>
13:08:10 <sandro> formally it's just "a sufficient level of implementation experience" , noting: "There is no requirement that a Candidate Recommendation have two independent and interoperable implementations to become a Proposed Recommendation. However, such experience is strongly encouraged and will generally strengthen its case before the Advisory Committee."
13:08:35 <Stian> but implementations are not required to perform queries?
13:08:46 <khalidbelhajjame> paolo: provenance is a graph, so we can check interoperability, by looking on how different impelementations will answer a set of queries, that are domain independant 
13:09:03 <khalidbelhajjame> q+
13:09:15 <Stian> I'm not going to implmenent any queries in Taverna-PROV - if you want to query, do a SPARQL
13:09:15 <ivan> ack Paolo 
13:09:24 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: but my application may not be able to answer any of those queries
13:10:19 <GK> q+ to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced provenance and performed useful functions with it.
13:10:22 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: there is an algorithm there that tries to match the queries and the answers given by the implementation?
13:11:00 <Stian> say a visualisation implementation - how do you 'query' that? You can say that you should be able to follow the derivation path, for instance. 
13:11:09 <Luc> q+
13:12:05 <GK> ack gk
13:12:05 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say w.r.t. Paul's implementation that he be able to provide a credible, substatiatable report that other applicatios have successfully consumed the produced
13:12:08 <Zakim> ... provenance and performed useful functions with it.
13:12:13 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
13:12:43 <Stian> 'successful' and 'useful' difficult
13:12:54 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: here are other applications that were able consume the provenance produced by a given application
13:13:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: identify applications that generate and make use of provenance within the context of the same domain
13:14:12 <Paolo> q+
13:14:14 <Paolo> q?
13:14:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
13:14:26 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: if we can demonstrate that from within one of my applications that produced trust info, in teh context of a single application, can be used by other applications
13:14:40 <GK> (Single application != "interoperability", IMO)
13:14:59 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: second: we have two deliverables that are going into that direction that are owl-specific
13:15:35 <GK> If it works for OWL/RDF, that validates the model, IMO.
13:15:42 <khalidbelhajjame> ivan: this is something that the group have to decide
13:15:52 <sandro> ( re how SKOS got out of CR .... they set the bar very very low, and no one objected.   It looks like it helped that they then went so far over their bar. )
13:16:02 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: follow the map of skos, and follow the use of prov
13:16:26 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we can build soem test cases to read provenance information, and answer simple queries 
13:16:27 <Stian> perhaps PROV-ODM is on the level of vocabulary in SKOS - PROV-O is more on the level of implementations/protocols (except for pure use in OWL imports)   PROV-AQ is clearly implementation thing.  PROV-SEM - I don't know. Papers?
13:16:51 <Paolo> q?
13:17:07 <GK> Paul: nice thought about test suite for checking provenance as a way to validate producers.
13:17:10 <sandro> sounds like a prov validator, not a test suite.     useful, but different.
13:17:31 <GK> @sandro, yes, but it still validates the generator to some extent.
13:17:33 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: there are two levels, correctness and usefulness
13:17:38 <Luc> PROV-SEM is not at level of REC
13:17:53 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: usefulness is hard to show
13:18:09 <sandro> @gk, sure but it's not a test suite -- it's not input documents.
13:18:11 <GK> @Paolo: it's arguable that usefulness is more important than correctness...
13:18:45 <pgroth> +q
13:18:46 <smiles> I dont think it is validation. The provenance must be correct before the test suite discussed can run, and the provenance could be used without the test suite passing
13:18:50 <khalidbelhajjame> ack paolo
13:20:20 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we can do two things: one we show a variety of implementations that produce or consume provenance, then a smaller case, we should identify different people that there are two impls that use and consume provenance based on some (test suite?)
13:21:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
13:21:26 <pgroth> q?
13:21:48 <GK> @Paul: I think there's a useful middle ground - which is to demonstrate applications based on exchange between independent implementations.
13:22:31 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: we have a task force who have been keen on gatherfing info on implementations
13:22:53 <GK> q+ to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria
13:23:04 <pgroth> ack GK
13:23:04 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest that the survey might be used as a basis for drawing success criteria
13:23:08 <sandro> q+ to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not
13:23:23 <Luc> q+ cab we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
13:23:41 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham: maybe we can use the survey to draw the success criteria 
13:23:43 <Luc> q+ to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
13:24:09 <tlebo>
13:24:31 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: in our survey of implementations, every concepts (rel) is used in at least 2 implementations
13:24:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: and on exchange on provenance, we try to cover most (if not all), the constructs of prov
13:25:02 <pgroth> ack sandro
13:25:02 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if you're thinking about 100% coverage or not
13:25:04 <pgroth> ls
13:25:27 <Paolo> q+
13:25:31 <pgroth> ack Luc
13:25:31 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to say can we leverage Tim's suite of examples?
13:25:33 <pgroth> ack Luc
13:25:36 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: If we can make use of Tim examples
13:26:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo: a benchmark is an example, and a set of questions with known answers.
13:26:37 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: not domain dependant
13:26:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: not from the semantics, but rather the vocabulary
13:27:17 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: tracedTo is an example
13:27:22 <khalidbelhajjame> luc:: that is the only example we have
13:29:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: the way to use the constraint is not i nteh specification. In particular, we are not specifying what we can infer
13:29:23 <pgroth> q?
13:29:28 <pgroth> ack Paolo
13:30:02 <tlebo> a really bad draft at permitting tool makes to self-list their capabilities and quantifying the interoperabilities:
13:30:12 <tlebo> s/makes/makers/
13:30:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: ask Helena and Stephane to start this activity
13:31:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: in other WGs, was there any test suite that were produced?
13:31:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Ivan: there is a language for text reporting, and there are tools out there who consume the text produced by the tool
13:32:19 <tlebo>
13:32:45 <pgroth>
13:32:48 <tlebo> @ivan, link to that RDF tester?
13:33:45 <ivan> tlebo:
13:33:50 <pgroth> Action: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
13:33:50 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Engage
13:33:52 <tlebo> thanks!
13:34:07 <pgroth> Action: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
13:34:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
13:34:18 <ivan> tlebo:  this is an RDFa tester, not RDF!!
13:34:32 <Stian> ( says now EXCESSIVE DELAYS ) 
13:37:13 <pgroth> Proposed: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs)
13:37:32 <pgroth> Accepted: For interoperability we catalogue existing implementations and which constructs of prov they use. Looking for at least two implementations of each construct. Furthermore, which pair of implementations can exchange prov (different pairs may exchange different constructs)
13:39:08 <khalidbelhajjame> Intero-session closed
13:51:49 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
13:52:35 <jcheney>
13:52:37 <khalidbelhajjame> prov-sem session (cont.)
13:52:38 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
13:53:54 <jun> jun has joined #prov
13:54:06 <tlebo> others have gone through the pain, too :-)
13:54:09 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: tried to systematize the translation prov-dm -> provo
13:54:44 <khalidbelhajjame> section Translating element formulas
13:56:04 <tlebo> I think this should be at the bottom of prov-o HTML
13:56:45 <dgarijo> @tim: not a bad idea.
13:56:57 <Stian> we talked about using OWL annotations for notes
13:57:27 <tlebo> owl annotations are on single instances? I thought just on a triple.
13:57:53 <GK> (I was minded to suggest removing the stuff about Annotations, as being used primarily for provenance of accounts by my reading.)
13:58:04 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: what is the role if this?
13:59:04 <GK> Luc: how do we take this forward?
13:59:45 <GK> (My answer to Luc might be that this is a matter for the editors.)
14:00:06 <tlebo> q+
14:00:16 <khalidbelhajjame> Section Questions/Problems
<pgroth> Topic: Planning
<pgroth> Summary: The session focused on planning. To facilatate mapping of prov-o and prov-dm, the group agreed to adopt the use of the ProvRDF mappings page to synchronize the two documents after the ontology reached the level of prov-dm WD3. To facilate this usage, it was agreed to ensure that the ProvRDF mappings page was also aligned with prov wd3. It was agreed that the editors would draft an updated version of prov-aq to address all outstanding issues. Additionally, the group agreed to start producing an xml schema. The editors of the prov-dm agreed to draft an simplified introduction to it reflecting the groups desire for simplfication. Finally, Paul agreed to summarize the F2F for an email to the whole group as well as in a blog post. 
14:00:57 <pgroth> q?
14:01:03 <Luc> q?
14:01:23 <GK> q+ to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc.
14:01:56 <Stian> tlebo: perhaps 
14:02:03 <Luc> ack tle
14:02:34 <GK> ack gk
14:02:34 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note This is uncontroversial as long s it's also uncontroversial that DM uses URIs to name entities, attributes, etc.
14:02:54 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc: tim? you are supportive of this effort?
14:03:39 <jcheney> Luc's question is how to integrate this into other things?
14:04:02 <khalidbelhajjame> Tim: this is explicit form that should be used by the rest of the prov-o team
14:04:10 <khalidbelhajjame> q+
14:04:35 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: what process would you suggest Tim?
14:05:25 <khalidbelhajjame> Tim: the previous mappings can be translated just like James did
14:05:47 <tlebo> one step: DM editors ensure that all "left sides" are listed.
14:05:49 <Luc> q?
14:06:15 <tlebo> a second step: PROV-O team sets the "right sides" in this notation
14:06:41 <GK> It seems to me this is a very effective way of bridging the DM presentation to RDF cognoscenti
14:06:44 <dgarijo> some binary relationships are missing, like a used e, e wasGeneratedBy a.
14:06:56 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: translation rules, we should use each rule endorced by the wg
14:07:13 <Luc> ack k
14:07:17 <pgroth> q+
14:07:30 <Stian> and while editing, having these in the end of PROV-O is also good as it sh/would show what mappings were used in that particular version
14:07:38 <tlebo> This is our status bar!
14:07:53 <GK> Khalid: James' rute of translation, rather than translation for every construct, try to come up with translation pattern?
14:08:04 <Luc> q?
14:08:09 <tlebo> remember the port of .... ?
14:08:18 <pgroth> quote of tony hoare
14:08:24 <tlebo> thx
14:09:25 <GK> proposes (among other things) factoring out attributes in the DM.
14:09:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul: we agreed on a proces on how the development of prov-o to first start with the ontology, do we need to add to that the additional effort to encode the rules that James illustrated?
14:09:59 <tlebo> +1
14:09:59 <Luc> q?
14:10:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth
14:10:03 <smiles> q+
14:10:10 <dgarijo> +1 to the proposed process
14:10:12 <pgroth> ack smiles
14:10:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
14:10:25 <Stian> +1
14:11:00 <khalidbelhajjame> smiles: this can also be useful for the primer to understad what has been changed in prov-o and might affect the primer
14:11:43 <Luc> q?
14:12:20 <tlebo> q+ to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at
14:13:26 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: if there is a proposal for change, then it still should be raised as an issue
14:14:54 <khalidbelhajjame> paul: it should be up to the chairs of prov-dm and prov-o to raise change against the primer, when things change in either prov-dm or prov-o
14:14:54 <Luc> q?
14:15:09 <khalidbelhajjame> to raise issues not change :-)
14:15:11 <Luc> ack tl
14:15:11 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask DM'ers to ensure the "left side" list is complete and to add annotatiosn for "what out, this one is in danger of leaving" (at
14:15:14 <Zakim> ...
14:15:20 <Stian> we have in the PROV-O document just kept a flat changelog as as well
14:15:31 <GK> (I woudn't raise a second issue on the primer, but I won't argue the case if the respective editors are OK with it.)
14:15:52 <khalidbelhajjame> jcheney: the translation rules specified is not complete yet
14:16:33 <GK> In line with other decisions, should we aim to align the rules with DM3, then let process track?
14:16:50 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: the issues that are raised in the tracker and in the prov-dm, and can be used by prov-o team to identify the constructs (relationships) at risk
14:17:00 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:17:32 <tlebo> sounds great.
14:18:15 <Luc> q?
14:18:21 <tlebo> will get into sync with DM WD3
14:18:49 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: the translation rules seem to be a useful tool for synchronizing the updates
14:18:57 <tlebo> we can handle the various issues in PROV-O team.
14:19:24 <khalidbelhajjame> prov-sem ended
14:20:02 <Luc> q?
14:20:06 <tlebo> the timetable for is before I go to bed tonight :-)
14:21:08 <tlebo> two weeks from now, we have an OWL file for WD3
14:21:08 <tlebo> yes
14:21:10 <pgroth> 2 weeks for alignment of prov-o ontology to prov-dm wd3
14:21:54 <tlebo> :-)
14:21:58 <GK> I won't be available for the 17 Feb telecon.  Just saying.
14:22:39 <tlebo> what about the owl file will we discusson the 16th?
14:22:46 <tlebo> s/son//
14:22:49 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov
14:22:58 <Paolo> .
14:23:09 <tlebo> ok
14:23:11 <Luc> q?
14:23:17 <stephenc> Very tempting to implement abstract syntax <=> rdf translation as prolog 
14:23:32 <tlebo> so, the action is just due by the 17.
14:23:42 <pgroth> Action: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon
14:23:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [on Michael Lang - due 2012-02-10].
14:24:17 <jcheney> @stephenc, yes, that's one of the next steps I had in mind. 
14:28:15 <dgarijo> @tlebo, stian, khalid: are we supposed to include a complete example with the ontology?
14:28:37 <dgarijo> it would help the review.
14:29:05 <tlebo> satya doesn't want instance data in the owl file.
14:29:27 <dgarijo> :) well then an additional file..
14:29:36 <tlebo> so we'll need a second file. But better, I want to use an annotation property to point from provo classes to examples that use them.
14:29:49 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, not in the ontology. I understand that we will be focusing just on the ontology itself
14:29:51 <tlebo> (and properties)
14:29:51 <dgarijo> ahh ok.
14:29:58 <Luc> q?
14:30:17 <dgarijo> @khalid, I know, not in the final version of the ontology. I was referring just for the review.
14:31:10 <stephenc> @jcheney swi-prolog has direct rdf support.  Abstract syntax is already "deviant prolog" - so no parsers to write. It would also be easy to generate a latex version for the wiki from a prolog version of the mapping rule.
14:31:16 <Stian> tlebo: feel free :) (annotation properties)
14:31:33 <jcheney> @stephenc What about sicstus :)
14:31:41 <tlebo> @ivan, do you have a handful of good vocab annotation vocabs? (like the ones Ian uses)?
14:31:56 <Stian> @khalidbelhajjame: I've checked in for our flight - seat 23F (window)  - perhaps you want to check in as well
14:31:57 <stephenc> @jcheney It's not free!
14:32:07 <pgroth> action: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon
14:32:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10].
14:32:19 <jcheney> True, but Edinburgh has a site license...
14:32:27 <Luc> q?
14:32:37 <ivan> problem is: there are more:-)
14:32:46 <ivan> the scientific community has some of those
14:32:53 <tlebo> @ivan, I'm always pleased when I run into them, but have never gathered up a list of them.
14:33:29 <tlebo> for example
14:33:51 <ivan> Tim, I do not have an exhaustive list. I think the best two are one coming form the Mass. General Hostpital (TIm Clark) and the other, I believe, from Lawrence LL. Will try to find a link
14:34:35 <ivan> s/Lawrence LL/Los Alamos/
14:34:39 <ivan> that one is:
14:35:36 <ivan> look at as well, there is a group looking into this
14:35:57 <ivan>
14:36:03 <ivan> problem - none of these are stable
14:36:19 <pgroth> action: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues
14:36:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
14:36:32 <tlebo> @ivan thanks!
14:40:02 <pgroth> action: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group 
14:40:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Write a summary email of f2f for the larger group  [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
14:40:21 <pgroth> action: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development
14:40:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Write a blog post about current status on development [on Paul Groth - due 2012-02-10].
14:43:59 <pgroth> action: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema
14:43:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Kickstart discussion on xml schema [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10].
14:46:03 <tlebo> I'm interesting in helping the XML (to write a GRDDL to rescue the XML into RDF) (and perhaps to write some example xpaths that exercise the XML) no xml schema experience, tons of xslt experience.
14:47:17 <Luc> q?
14:52:34 <Luc> q?
14:52:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:54:22 <Stian> I've got XSD experience, but don't think I have the bandwith
14:54:30 <Stian> can pretend I'm 'expert'
14:55:29 <GK> Our charter calls for:  D1. PIL Conceptual Model (REC), D2. PIL Formal Model (REC), D3. PIL Formal Semantics (NOTE), which are mapped to roughly: PROV-DM, PROV-O and semantics.  But there' a lot of formal-ish material in PROV-DM which doesn't really belong in PROV-O.  Should we try and factor away the inference/constraint material in PROV-DM from a basic and accessible description of the underlying model?
14:57:11 <pgroth> action: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3
14:57:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [on James Cheney - due 2012-02-10].
14:57:18 <Stian> khalidbelhajjame: start your skype :)
14:59:22 <jcheney> That should be due February 23...
15:00:00 <pgroth> q+
15:01:07 <tlebo> luc: if we don't have things, there is not specOf and altOf ?
15:01:18 <tlebo> did I get that right?
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:05:37 <kai2> kai2 has joined #prov
15:05:57 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:06:48 <kai3> kai3 has joined #prov
15:07:59 <dgarijo> luc: are "objects" descriptions?
15:08:37 <dgarijo> jcheney: for description I'm not sure about the connotations
15:08:45 <tlebo> @sandro, you there?
15:08:58 <GK> I think "description" is part of the ;language, not what we are describing.
15:09:44 <dgarijo> luc: instead of objects should we talk about states of resources, or partial states of resources?
15:09:55 <GK> q+ to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this
15:10:03 <Luc> q?
15:10:22 <dgarijo> jcheney: objects are kind of a weird middle level
15:10:24 <GK> (this = how PROV-DM entoities relate to resources)
15:11:50 <tlebo> - awww:Resources are semiotic referents denoted and awww:identifiedBy URIs. Requesting the URI via HTTP will return a Resource Representation that describes the referent.
15:12:06 <Luc> q?
15:13:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: yesterday we said: let's do thing and just continue from there. What would the ramifications be for the semantics?
15:13:08 <GK> q+ to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any construct.  The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things.
15:13:49 <dgarijo> ivan: the different between thing and objects dissapear
15:13:57 <dgarijo> s
15:15:59 <dgarijo> jcheney: in order to say that an attribute is true I have to measure the time of the assertion, that was part of the semantics
15:16:39 <dgarijo> luc: Remove things and then rename objects into thing
15:16:46 <tlebo> "scruffiness" means that asserters name and refer to less specialized Entities, while the "propers" would object to that modeling because they think more specialized Entities should be named and referred to. For example, scruffies describe when propers would want them to describe 
15:18:09 <dgarijo> gk: the scruffiness is maybe isatisfaible
15:18:53 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:19:03 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:19:55 <Stian> I don't understand "over time" here
15:19:55 <dgarijo> khalid: when we have the things, then can they be mutable or not?
15:20:56 <tlebo> I hope people are not considering "web resources" to be exclusively computer files. I'm a web resource....
15:21:33 <Stian> do you mean that someone says in a single graph:    :car a owl:Thing;  :colour :red .   :ColourFinder a prov:Activity ; prov:used :car .   :blue prov:wasGeneratedBy :ColourFinder; prov:wasDerivedFrom :car .   
15:21:51 <Stian> (assuming that colourfinder found the :colour attribute)
15:22:32 <dgarijo> gk: this doesn't talk about attirbutes other than the others that vary with time
15:23:06 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
15:23:36 <Luc> q?
15:23:39 <Luc> ack pg
15:23:40 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure I agree.    I think "resource" can be anything, but if you're going to put the word "web" in there, it's short of "web-accessible".    not quite sure if that covers non-IR resources or not, but it only covers things with working IRIs.
15:24:00 <sandro> (not sure if you have a working IRI or now)
15:24:06 <sandro> s/now/not/
15:24:35 <dgarijo> paul: if we do what luc proposed, do we deal scruffiness?
15:24:47 <dgarijo> gk: what do you mean by scruffiness?
15:25:22 <dgarijo> pgroth: if you use the semantics, it will come up and barf: you're not doing it right ->structured guidance.
15:25:27 <tlebo> Web Resources disjointUnion (   non-Information-Resource    InformationResource    )
15:25:38 <dgarijo> ... in RDF we do this all the time
15:26:04 <dgarijo> ... the intention is to make it easy to apply
15:27:20 <tlebo> Web Resource := anything denoted by a URI (though, happy to get corrected with a pointer to a doc)
15:29:02 <tlebo> :Web_Resource owl:equivalentClass awww:Resource .
15:29:43 <dgarijo> luc: maybe Paolo, james an luc should sit around the table, discuss and then come back
15:30:03 <Luc> q?
15:30:44 <dgarijo> paul: the semantics is how you should do provenance, but it is fine if you don't do it
15:31:39 <GK> ack gk
15:31:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I don't think we should be trying to describe this and to say I now think there are (1) things in the domain of discourse that may be identified in the
15:31:42 <dgarijo> luc: how can I map those assertions into the semantics. At the moment I don't see it, so it doesn't help
15:31:42 <Zakim> ... semantic model, (2) things in domain of discourse that are referenced directly in the DM and (3) syntactic artifacts (and maybe other things) that are not referenced by any
15:31:42 <Zakim> ... construct.  The consequence of this is that DM can refer to entities (alone) without reference to things, which are still explained in the semantics by reference to things.
15:32:32 <dgarijo> gk: we can take out a layer from the model without necessarily having to take it from the semantics
15:34:18 <Stian> q?
15:34:18 <Luc> q?
15:34:25 <dgarijo> luc: instead of droping entities in the data model, we drop things in the data model and we map them to the semantics
15:34:38 <pgroth> q+ ivan
15:34:45 <pgroth> q- ivan
15:34:50 <Paolo> q?
15:35:21 <Paolo> q+
15:35:29 <dgarijo> jcheney: there is no syntax for things (I don't think it is necessary).
15:36:00 <Luc> q?
15:36:34 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:36:35 <dgarijo> paolo: makes perfect sense what gk said. 
15:37:00 <dgarijo> paolo: I don't see the need for that in the DM
15:38:45 <dgarijo> luc: the scruffy version is objects/entities for which there is no lifetime defined?
15:39:12 <dgarijo> luc: so none of this machinery works! they don't have lifetime
15:39:33 <tlebo> scruffies assert among Entities that are higher in the specializationOf chain
15:39:45 <dgarijo> stian: how do you know it doesn't work? it is just not stated
15:40:35 <Stian> :blogPost prov:wasAuthoredBy :paul   is fine as long as you don't also say  :paul prov:wasDerivedFrom :blogPost
15:40:59 <dgarijo> paolo: we may not have inconsistencies, but we could have consequences.
15:41:47 <Stian> or say you use <> for both identifiers :)
15:41:54 <dgarijo> luc: action to prov-dm editors: write a separate document to no longer talk about things in prov dm, just entities. Things will be the mechanism by which we'll provide some semantics.
15:42:26 <dgarijo> ... we'l analyze the meaning of scruffy provenance vs more sofisticated and comlpete provenance
15:42:54 <dgarijo> paul: one conclusion is that people is keen on not having entities
15:43:02 <dgarijo> ... it simplifies the model
15:43:21 <dgarijo> ... avoid using intervals, freezing, etc.
15:43:25 <GK> @paul +lots!
15:43:31 <tlebo> :-)
15:43:57 <dgarijo> paul: please take that under consideration.
15:44:19 <dgarijo> smiles: in the primer that's our approach
15:44:41 <Stian> Satya Sahoo: "Attributes on an Entity SHOULD be consistent across all involvements of the entity in other provenance records"
15:44:52 <dgarijo> luc: we could tackle that after the second half of the dm, reduced to a minimum
15:45:16 <Stian> s/consistent/true/ or similar  (people don't like 'consistent')
15:45:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: I really like the interaction between semantics and dm
15:45:38 <dgarijo> luc:it confirms that semantics should be a note.
15:46:22 <pgroth> q?
15:46:25 <dgarijo> luc: will go back to the working group in 2 weeks
15:46:49 <Stian> KL1093 16:20 to Manchester was cancelled
15:47:19 <dgarijo> @Stian :S
15:48:38 <Luc> q?
15:49:33 <pgroth> action: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan  
15:49:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan   [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-02-10].
15:49:58 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:49:58 <Luc> q?
15:50:24 <pgroth> luc: thanking everyone
15:50:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: thanks to ivan
15:50:49 <dgarijo> ... and to all.
15:51:03 <Stian> @dgarijo they seem to be recovering and flying out a few 14:00 flights now - me and Khalid are hopefully fine by 21 - but 
15:51:52 <tlebo> bye bye :-)
15:52:02 <pgroth> tlebo awesomeness!
15:52:05 <satya> @Daniel: Thanks Daniel again for hosting us!
15:52:18 <Zakim> - +31.20.598.aaaa
15:52:19 <satya> bye
15:52:21 <Zakim> -tlebo
15:52:24 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:52:24 <tlebo> Thanks, @daniel!
15:52:28 <Zakim> -??P1
15:52:29 <Zakim> PROV_f2f()3:00AM has ended
15:52:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, tlebo, +31.20.598.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo
15:52:32 <GK> Done!!!
15:53:14 <dgarijo> bye all
15:53:39 <Stian> for 16:00 says pretty much everything cancelled - at 14:00 there are 3 flights that went out
15:55:51 <pgroth> zakim, end telecon
15:55:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end telecon', pgroth
15:55:59 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
15:55:59 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:55:59 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:56:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:56:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
15:56:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> I see 10 open action items saved in :
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [1]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) [2]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael Lang - Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3 by 17 Feb telecon [3]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon [4]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth draft review of potential public wd2 addressing all outstanding issues [5]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth write a summary email of f2f for the larger group  [6]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth write a blog post about current status on development [7]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc kickstart discussion on xml schema [8]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to update prov-sem to be compatible with wd3 [9]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
15:56:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Jan   [10]
15:56:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in