Chatlog 2012-10-04

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:56:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:56:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:56:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:56:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:56:36 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012
14:56:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:56:43 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:56:43 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:55 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:57:02 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:57:08 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier
14:57:14 <pgroth> Regrets: Tom De Nies
14:57:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:40 <Zakim> + +1.818.415.aaaa
14:57:51 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:57:59 <ivan> zakim, code?
14:57:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
14:58:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:58:15 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:26 <Zakim> +ivan
14:58:49 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
14:59:03 <Zakim> +??P11
14:59:40 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P11 is me
14:59:44 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:59:46 <Zakim> +??P56
15:00:01 <Luc> zakim, +??P56 is me
15:00:01 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+??P56'
15:00:06 <Luc> zakim, ??P56 is me
15:00:06 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:09 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of the Sept 27, 2012 telco were approved. Paul showed a set of overview slides for the WG. Group agreed that long standing actions from Paulo should be closed with a comment.
15:00:13 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:00:13 <CraigTrim> zakim, +1.818.415.aaaa is me
15:00:14 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
15:00:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:51 <pgroth>
15:00:58 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon
15:01:01 <ivan> +1
15:01:08 <CraigTrim> +1
15:01:14 <Paolo> +1
15:01:16 <Dong> +1
15:01:21 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:21 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:01:24 <Zakim> +Luc
15:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see CraigTrim, [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc.a
15:01:27 <Zakim> +??P2
15:01:35 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:35 <christine> christine has joined #prov
15:01:47 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon
15:02:03 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:02:22 <Paolo> pgroth: what to do about long-lasting open actions
15:02:29 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
15:02:43 <Zakim> +stain
15:02:46 <Zakim> +jcheney
15:03:01 <Paolo> ivan: it's ok to time out on them and close them, noting that no reply was received
15:03:45 <pgroth>
15:03:53 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:04:20 <Paolo> pgroth: finally completed his action, see link above
15:04:54 <Paolo> action 118 (?) also taken care of
15:04:54 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 118. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:05:27 <Paolo> action-113 done (issue 446)
15:05:37 <Paolo> action-116 still ongoing
15:05:45 <pgroth> q?
15:06:08 <pgroth> - Topic PROV Exit Criteria
15:06:21 <Paolo> TOPIC: PROV Exit Criteria
<pgroth> Summary: Paul went over the existing exit criteria. He went through a proposal from the chairs on extending the exit criteria in particular for the constraints. The group agreed that there are three types of implementations: usage of prov in a dataset, vocabularies that extend prov, software that generates/consumes PROV. The group agreed with the principle that for prov-constraints we would produce test cases that were tied to only the constraints but these test cases would also exercise the inferences. Furthermore, the group recommended looking at more automatic mechanisms for gathering results of test cases for constraints. Additionally, the exit criteria should be specific about which documents are tested. Paul was actioned to take this input and present a revised version of the exit criteria by the next telcon. Dong, Luc, Daniel all agreed to contribute to the development of test cases for prov-contstraints. Paolo agreed to help check test cases for correctness.
15:06:39 <pgroth>
15:06:57 <Paolo> pgroth: exit criteria were discussed at the latest F2F meeting
15:07:27 <pgroth>
15:07:47 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aabb
15:07:48 <Paolo> exit criteria are here:
15:08:38 <pgroth> q?
15:08:42 <ivan> q+
15:08:47 <Paolo> pgroth: these criteria apply to the DM and ontology
15:08:47 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:09:07 <Paolo> ivan: what is an "implementation" in this context
15:09:08 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:09:22 <Zakim> -Luc
15:09:37 <Paolo> pgroth: using PROV in a dataset, e.g. markung up a web page
15:09:51 <Paolo> pgroth: a vocabulayr for ontologies that extend prov
15:10:14 <Paolo> pgroth: SW that generates and consumes PROV models
15:10:47 <Paolo> ivan: fine, suggest adding this phrasing to the wiki page containing the exit criteria
15:10:59 <stainN7> stainN7 has joined #prov
15:11:11 <Dong> @Paul: Sure
15:11:17 <pgroth> q?
15:11:17 <Paolo> ivan: also, when implementations are collected, tag them according to the category where they belong
15:11:29 <Paolo> pgroth: are people happy with those 3 categories?
15:11:33 <pgroth> q?
15:12:27 <Paolo> pgroth: these work for DM and O primarily. What would the criteria look like for CONSTRAINTS?
15:13:05 <Paolo> pgroth: need to demonstrate interoperability. 
15:14:07 <Paolo> pgroth: proposed criteria: multiple implementations, and show that they support each of the constraints defined in the doc. This is done through a catalog of reference test cases that the implementation must be able to pass
15:14:28 <jcheney> q+
15:14:36 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
15:14:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:14:49 <Paolo> pgroth: the implementation must correctly evaluate the test case against the constraints it is meant to exercise
15:15:01 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:15:01 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:15:47 <stain> stainNexus7 has joined #prov
15:15:48 <Paolo> jcheney: clarification: the criteria include the constraints but exclude the inferences
15:16:07 <Paolo> pgroth: yes, but you probably need to do inferences as well as part of the implementation
15:16:11 <stain> Who would build those test cases? The wg?
15:16:46 <ivan> q+
15:16:52 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:16:57 <Paolo> jcheney: are the test cases based on 'validity' which requires inferencing? or is inferencing one possible way to do the implementation
15:17:21 <jcheney> so perhaps the test cases should try to *exercise* the inferences
15:17:44 <Luc> +q
15:17:48 <Paolo> ivan: the constr doc contains inference rules, not just constraints. So are there inferences that will not be tested by the test cases?
15:18:54 <Paolo> jcheney: inferences are a mechanism to define validity, however in the doc we specify that other mechanisms to check validity are fine as well
15:19:31 <Paolo> ivan: that's fine then
15:20:14 <Paolo> Luc: to confirm what jcheney wrote above -- but the test case won't check that inferences have been applied
15:20:41 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:21:02 <hook> q+
15:22:10 <Paolo> hook: interoperability should show that producers and consumers of provenance actually can use the spec to exchange prov
15:22:12 <Zakim> +??P28
15:22:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:22:21 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:22:30 <Paolo> hook: the current interpretation of interop does not address that
15:23:04 <Paolo> pgroth: true for CONSTR, however prov DM and prov O do require demonstration of interop according to the exit criteria
15:23:05 <Luc> q+
15:23:27 <pgroth> ack hook
15:24:12 <Paolo> Luc: are we try to gain evidence for each prov-* individually, or collectively as a whole?
15:24:32 <Paolo> Luc: for example, what does it mean for DM to interop "on its own"?
15:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: for DM, you do have to go through prov-N or prov-O. the impl. should specify which encoding it supports
15:25:14 <Paolo> pgroth: incl. XML
15:25:19 <Zakim> +??P1
15:25:25 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:27:03 <Paolo> ivan: do we really need an implementation for prov-n which is meant for human consumption?  it's not meant to be a machine-exchangeable format
15:27:28 <Paolo> Luc: indeed machine processing initially not the primary goal
15:27:47 <Dong> @Luc, when you mentioned evidence, did you mean that we need to gather proofs beyond submitted answers to the implementation questionnaire?
15:28:16 <ivan> q+
15:28:20 <Paolo> pgroth: this is good feedback to produce the next version of the exit criteria. we need to be more specific
15:28:22 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:28:23 <ivan>
15:28:33 <Luc> @dong, submitted answers is what I think we have agreed
15:28:53 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aabb
15:28:58 <Dong> @luc, thanks, that's good.
15:29:02 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
15:29:25 <Luc> was the functional syntax document a rec?
15:29:27 <Paolo> ivan: the EC for OWL2 is relevant because it's got an analog in a functional syntax, which is not even mentioned in the EC
15:29:39 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
15:29:54 <Paolo> ivan: because the functional syntax can be mapped to one of the serializations
15:30:23 <ivan>
15:31:04 <Paolo> ivan: the doc above is analogous to prov-n in our case
15:31:43 <Luc> +q
15:31:47 <Paolo> ivan: so the EC should really apply to prov-o and prov-constr
15:31:58 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:32:01 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
15:32:26 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
15:32:26 <Paolo> Luc: should different implementations come from different institutions?
15:32:56 <Paolo> ivan: if EC call for two impl, then yes they should come from different institutions
15:33:13 <pgroth> q?
15:33:16 <Luc> q+
15:33:19 <Paolo> pgroth: plan to vote on EC next week
15:33:44 <pgroth> action: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week
15:33:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Revise exit criteria for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-11].
15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:34:56 <Paolo> ivan: EC should be fully completed by the time we leave CR, not when we enter CR
15:35:22 <dgarijo> and how do we add an application to the implementation catalog?
15:35:29 <Paolo> pgroth: need volunteers to build test cases for the constraints
15:35:47 <Luc> we can already collect all examples from our specs
15:35:55 <dgarijo> me
15:36:05 <dgarijo> I think Jun was interested as well
15:36:29 <Luc> dong?
15:36:40 <Dong> Sorry, I missed it
15:36:41 <Paolo> Paolo: I can help but can't commit time at this point
15:36:44 <dgarijo> I don't see her here, so I'll contact her to see if she's interested.
15:37:11 <pgroth> me
15:37:17 <Luc> me with Dong
15:37:25 <Dong> Yes
15:37:32 <Luc> q+
15:37:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:37:42 <tlebo> after I see a test case or two, I'll reconsider adding some.
15:38:20 <ivan> q+
15:38:22 <Paolo> Luc: once they are defined, they should be validated "by expert hand"
15:38:24 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:39:08 <Dong> @Paul, I've understood that it's a part of the work I'm involved in preparing the implementation report
15:39:10 <Paolo> ivan: need a dynamics in place to manage the responses. What is the reporting mechanism?
15:39:21 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically believe them
15:39:25 <Curt> believe and document their assertion
15:39:29 <Luc> q+
15:39:57 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:40:04 <Paolo> ivan: this means that responses will be managed manually, which may be problematic to scale
15:40:44 <Paolo> Luc: have 100-200 tests at the moment, we should have a simple mechanism with an ID per test...
15:41:17 <Paolo> ivan: a basic mechanism should be defined, we must specify how implementors are expected to report back
15:41:27 <pgroth> q?
15:41:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Issues
<pgroth> Summary: A set of issues were agreed to have been resolved. See the resolution.
15:43:23 <Zakim> -stain
15:43:49 <Paolo> pgroth: going through the list....
15:44:14 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aaee
15:44:48 <Paolo> pgroth: 520 left till next time as there was discussion
15:45:40 <Paolo> pgroth: (isolating the issues that received feedback and discussion)
15:47:32 <pgroth> ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515,
15:47:46 <pgroth> q?
15:47:52 <Paolo> pgroth: the issues above have reached resolution
15:48:21 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved
15:48:45 <ivan> +1
15:48:48 <tlebo> +1
15:48:50 <dgarijo> +1
15:48:57 <jcheney> +1
15:49:03 <Dong> +1
15:49:03 <Paolo> +1
15:49:10 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved
15:50:16 <pgroth> Topic: UML and Naming
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the upper/lowercase naming of property names and the inconsistency between UML diagrams and the syntaxes. This is an issue with the use of UML. To resolve, this issue the group agreed that a modified version of the starting points diagram from prov-o should be used in the primer to avoid confusion
15:50:39 <ivan> issue-509?
15:50:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open
15:50:39 <trackbot>
15:50:43 <Paolo> pgroth: see issue-509
15:50:55 <Zakim> +??P4
15:51:09 <Luc> q+
15:51:15 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:52:04 <Paolo> Luc: earlier versions of the docs show capitalized classes, and relationships not capitalized. that led to inconsistencies
15:52:06 <Paolo> Luc
15:52:32 <Paolo> Luc: we addressed by cap "class level" elements and nocap for "instance level" elements
15:52:56 <Paolo> Luc: diff. notations use different styles. in prov-n nothing is cap
15:53:18 <Paolo> Luc: so we will be inconsistent anyway whatever change we make
15:54:35 <Paolo> Luc: in prov-o class derivations are cap, for instance. There is no solution that works for all of them
15:54:43 <pgroth> q?
15:54:45 <ivan> q+
15:54:47 <Paolo> Luc: we tried to make prov-dm consistent with itself
15:55:06 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:55:25 <Paolo> ivan: as the one reopening the issue: looking at the primer on its own. because of its role, felt that consistency was important
15:56:00 <Paolo> ivan: the primer has dual syntax for examples. in prov-n there is no cap, while turtle is also consistent with prov-o
15:56:43 <Paolo> ivan: but fig. after sec 2 uses an inconsistent cap mode, and that is not explained. so proposed to make it consistent with prov-o
15:56:50 <Luc> q+
15:56:56 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:57:09 <Paolo> ivan: so just asking to make the figure consistent with one syntax in the text.
15:57:18 <Paolo> Luc: the figure uses the prov-dm convention
15:57:41 <Paolo> Luc: it's a class diagram, not an instance.
15:58:04 <pgroth> q+
15:58:15 <ivan> q+
15:59:07 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:59:21 <Paolo> ivan: the figures in the primer may differ from those in the DM. because it's the primer, readers won't appreciate the alignment with prov,
15:59:40 <Paolo> ivan: rather they will be confused by the change in cap style
16:00:03 <dgarijo> +1 to what paul suggested.
16:00:19 <Paolo> pgroth: we should be using the diagram in prov-o instead, it's not UML but it's "classes and properties" and may work better here
16:00:32 <Paolo> ivan: happy with that
16:00:38 <dgarijo>
16:01:14 <pgroth> q?
16:01:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:01:31 <tlebo> sounds good
16:01:48 <pgroth> accepted: use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer
16:04:32 <pgroth> q?
16:05:18 <tlebo> bye! Thanks, Paul.
16:05:21 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:05:24 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:05:25 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:05:27 <Zakim> -ivan
16:05:28 <Zakim> -Luc
16:05:29 <Dong> thanks, bye all
16:05:30 <Zakim> -Dong
16:05:33 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
16:05:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:05:34 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:05:40 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aaee
16:05:41 <Zakim> -??P1
16:05:43 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:05:49 <Zakim> -??P4
16:06:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth
16:06:09 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:06:13 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, tlebo, Dong, stain, jcheney, +1.818.393.aabb, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc,
16:06:17 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aadd, +1.818.393.aaee
16:06:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:06:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in :
16:06:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week [1]
16:06:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
16:25:36 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
16:25:37 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended