From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda PROV-WG telecon 16 Feb 2012

Teleconferences (official participants and invited guests only):
- Thursdays, 8 am San Francisco, 11 am Boston, 4 pm London, 5 pm Paris 
- For up to 90 minutes, goal is 60 minutes.
- Dial +1-617-761-6200 or then conference code 7768#
- IRC channel: #prov (
- Zakim instructions:
- RRSAgent instructions:
- Scribe list:


  • Chair: Paul Groth
  • Scribe: Eric Stephan
  • Action items to review:

PROV-DM Simplification

ACTION-62: Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model

See page:

Confirm Reviewers:

  • TimL, EricS, GK, Daniel (tentative), MacTed(tentative), Curt(tentative)
  • Others??

Goals of the review:

  • decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective
  • recommend whether they become the new editor's draft
    • if not, identify blocking issues
    • if yes, identify potential issues to be raised against these future new editor's draft
  • decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed
  • Review period: 1 week

PROV-O Ontology updated

Action-55: Prov-o team will produce an updated owl file reflecting prov-dm wd3

  • Luc, Paolo, EricS, StephenC (TBC),
  • Others??

Goals of the review:

  • decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3
  • decide whether the ontology has adopted simplified naming (as flagged by Ivan).
  • confirm that the ontology fits OWL-RL
  • confirm that the ontology creates "natural rdf" see
  • Review period: 1 week

ProvRDF Mappings

Action-56: Update the provrdf rules and align it with prov wd3 by 16 Feb telecon



Timetable for Release

  • Agree on a timetable for synchronous release of Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer

Agent Types

Come to agreement on the core types of agents.

Proposal: Refactor agent subtypes to person, system and organization.

See thread ending in:

Pattern for defining records

Guidance is necessary fromt the WG on what records should look like. Choice between:

1. Do we adopt a common pattern for all elements and relations? 2. Do we 'customize' relations according to use cases we have encountered (which would mean, potentially, dropping attributes/ids for hasAnnotation/alternatedOf)