IRC log of prov on 2012-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:38:44 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:38:44 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-prov-irc
15:38:46 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
15:38:46 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #prov
15:38:48 [Luc]: Zakim, this will be PROV
15:38:48 [Zakim]: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:48 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be
15:38:49 [trackbot]: Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:38:49 [trackbot]: Date: 19 January 2012
15:38:49 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:38:57 [Luc]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.19
15:39:09 [Luc]: Chair: Luc Moreau
15:39:09 [Paolo]: Paolo has joined #prov
15:39:14 [Luc]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:45:11 [Luc]: Scribe: satya
15:56:04 [pgroth]: pgroth has joined #prov
15:56:36 [Zakim]: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:43 [Zakim]: +??P29
15:56:46 [pgroth]: Zakim, who is on the call?
15:56:46 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P29
15:56:54 [pgroth]: Zakim, ??P29 is me
15:56:54 [Zakim]: +pgroth; got it
15:57:16 [satya]: satya has joined #prov
15:58:06 [Zakim]: +??P4
15:58:18 [Paolo]: zakim, ??p4 is me
15:58:20 [Zakim]: +Paolo; got it
15:58:36 [Zakim]: +Luc
15:58:54 [Zakim]: +Satya_Sahoo
15:59:43 [Luc]: q?
15:59:54 [Luc]: zakim, who in on the call?
16:00:05 [smiles]: smiles has joined #prov
16:00:08 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, Luc.
16:00:14 [Zakim]: +??P6
16:00:16 [Zakim]: +??P18
16:00:23 [Luc]: zakim, who in on the phone?
16:00:23 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, Luc.
16:00:29 [Luc]: zakim, who is on the call?
16:00:29 [Zakim]: On the phone I see pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, ??P6, ??P18
16:00:37 [tlebo]: tlebo has joined #prov
16:00:42 [stephenc]: stephenc has joined #prov
16:01:06 [Zakim]: +AlexHall
16:01:11 [Zakim]: +tlebo
16:01:25 [Mike]: Mike has joined #prov
16:02:22 [dgarijo]: dgarijo has joined #prov
16:02:51 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-01-12
16:02:55 [satya]: Luc: Discuss PROV-DM, identifiers, and if possible accounts
16:02:56 [Luc]: PROPOSED: to accepted the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference
16:03:02 [satya]: +1
16:03:07 [Luc]: topic: Admin
16:03:14 [Paolo]: +1
16:03:16 [Mike]: +1
16:03:27 [tlebo]: -1 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-01-12 404s
16:03:34 [smiles]: 0 (absent)
16:03:48 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-12
16:03:51 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:04:00 [dgarijo]: +1
16:04:04 [stephenc]: +1
16:04:07 [tlebo]: +1
16:04:16 [dgarijo]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:04:25 [Luc]: Accepted: the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference
16:04:34 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:04:45 [satya]: Luc: Reviewing outstanding actions
16:04:53 [Zakim]: +dgarijo; got it
16:05:01 [satya]: Luc: 1. Write a blog on PROV-DM
16:05:29 [Zakim]: +sandro
16:05:35 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm
16:06:02 [Luc]: 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200
16:06:20 [tlebo]: (the issues that are on Satya's action)
16:06:35 [satya]: Luc: 2. Action for Satya to respond to outstanding issues
16:07:01 [Luc]: Topic: prov-dm
16:07:02 [satya]: Luc: Please sign up for scribe duties
16:07:14 [Luc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html
16:07:21 [jcheney]: jcheney has joined #prov
16:07:37 [Zakim]: +OpenLink_Software
16:07:53 [Luc]: q?
16:07:57 [Zakim]: +??P12
16:07:59 [tlebo]: missed it. Didn't realize there was a vote.
16:08:03 [smiles]: yes, sorry, just been swamped, no other reason
16:08:05 [jcheney]: zakim, ??P12 is me
16:08:05 [Zakim]: +jcheney; got it
16:08:09 [Paolo]: mostly lost in the noise for me
16:08:11 [MacTed]: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:08:11 [Zakim]: +MacTed; got it
16:08:12 [satya]: Luc: Need to vote on issue at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html
16:08:13 [MacTed]: Zakim, mute me
16:08:13 [Zakim]: MacTed should now be muted
16:08:20 [pgroth]: +q
16:08:21 [zednik]: zednik has joined #prov
16:08:31 [satya]: Luc: Will send a reminder to vote
16:08:51 [Zakim]: + +1.518.633.aaaa
16:08:55 [Luc]: ack pgroth
16:08:57 [Luc]: PROV-ISSUE-206: three proposals to vote on (deadline Jan 15th midnight GMT)
16:09:04 [satya]: Paul: Indicate the content for voting in the subject line
16:09:46 [Zakim]: -dgarijo
16:09:52 [satya]: Luc: Already listed in the subject line of the mail
16:10:47 [satya]: Luc: Next item - Paolo and me have been editing PROV-DM - specialization and alternateOf
16:11:09 [satya]: Luc: Reaching agreement on the transitivity of these constructs
16:11:40 [satya]: Luc: Have addressed all issues for the third release of DM
16:11:45 [Zakim]: +??P27
16:11:47 [Paolo]: @stian are you available tomorrow -- new attempt to connect re: the collections setion
16:11:48 [Luc]: q?
16:11:58 [satya]: Luc: Outstanding issues have been listed at end of each section
16:12:09 [Luc]: q?
16:12:29 [dgarijo]: Zakim, ??P27 is me
16:12:29 [Zakim]: +dgarijo; got it
16:12:34 [khalidbelhajjame]: khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:12:40 [satya]: Luc: Propose to vote on release of DM as third working draft for next week
16:12:42 [Luc]: Topic: prov-o
16:12:56 [satya]: Luc: Next item - PROV-O document
16:13:56 [tlebo]: todo list that has been making progress is in meeting notes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-16
16:14:00 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:14:03 [Luc]: q?
16:14:07 [dgarijo]: +q
16:14:15 [khalidbelhajjame]: zakim, IPcaller is me
16:14:15 [Zakim]: +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:14:38 [Luc]: ack dga
16:15:14 [dgarijo]: @satya: that's great
16:16:00 [satya]: Mike is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor
16:16:17 [satya]: Mike: Working on blog post examples will soon post an update
16:16:34 [dgarijo]: @satya : will we be discussing the best practices doc this monday too?
16:16:45 [Luc]: Luc: Mike is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor
16:17:05 [Luc]: q?
16:17:05 [dgarijo]: +q
16:17:17 [Luc]: ack dg
16:17:52 [pgroth]: +q
16:18:02 [satya]: Daniel: The PROV-O is becoming unwieldy with qualified involvement construct
16:18:16 [satya]: Daniel: Would it make sense to have two resources?
16:18:32 [Luc]: q?
16:18:35 [Luc]: ack pg
16:18:43 [khalidbelhajjame]: @Paul, I think we were thinking more about files, where people who are interested in a provo-light can use it
16:18:49 [tlebo]: +q to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy.
16:19:41 [satya]: Paul: Recommend have both resources with same namespace instead of having two separate resources
16:19:42 [dgarijo]: @tim: yeah, but the modules can share the namespace, right?
16:20:02 [dgarijo]: I have to agree with paul on the namespace requirement.
16:20:06 [Luc]: q?
16:20:08 [Luc]: ack tl
16:20:08 [Zakim]: tlebo, you wanted to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy.
16:20:12 [tlebo]: q-
16:20:47 [satya]: Luc: Agree with Paul for using single namespace for PROV-O
16:21:02 [satya]: Luc: May be premature to re-organize the ontology
16:21:03 [tlebo]: q+ to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc.
16:21:03 [Luc]: q?
16:21:11 [pgroth]: +q
16:21:38 [satya]: Tim: Is there a single approach for PROV-DM and PROV-O w.r.t. namespace
16:21:41 [satya]: q+
16:21:52 [satya]: Luc: It is on the table for discussion
16:22:26 [Luc]: ack tle
16:22:26 [Zakim]: tlebo, you wanted to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc.
16:22:26 [satya]: Luc: Proposal to have namespace for different PROV resources (XML, OWL etc.)
16:22:53 [tlebo]: +1 tracking it as an issue.
16:22:58 [satya]: Paul: This should be raised as an issue
16:23:02 [Luc]: it's already a comment in prov-dm
16:23:14 [dgarijo]: @paul: sounds good as a reminder.
16:23:22 [Luc]: ack pg
16:23:29 [tlebo]: I've pulled some notes on this last time I heard about it: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV-O_URI_namespace
16:24:23 [Luc]: ack sat
16:24:25 [Luc]: q?
16:24:39 [Luc]: Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
16:24:55 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport
16:25:30 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport#Discussion_about_Identifiers
16:25:46 [satya]: Luc: Created an example to highlight problematic issues in DM w.r.t to identifiers
16:26:10 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
16:26:42 [satya]: Luc: Agree on some of the issues related to identifiers - enumerated proposals
16:27:05 [Luc]: q?
16:27:12 [smiles]: q+
16:27:26 [Luc]: ack sm
16:28:09 [satya]: Simon: What has been proposed w.r.t common relations in DM, for example wasRevisionOf and usage events
16:28:13 [pgroth]: +q
16:28:58 [GK]: GK has joined #prov
16:29:07 [satya]: Simon: For example, A is revisionOf B then identify generation of A?
16:29:26 [Zakim]: + +44.789.470.aabb
16:29:32 [pgroth]: q-
16:29:36 [davidschaengold]: davidschaengold has joined #prov
16:29:45 [Luc]: q?
16:29:47 [pgroth]: to respond to simon
16:29:51 [satya]: Luc: Elicit feedback on example first
16:30:00 [Zakim]: +??P41
16:30:02 [pgroth]: q+
16:30:12 [GK]: zakim, ??p41 is me
16:30:12 [Zakim]: +GK; got it
16:30:13 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
16:30:16 [pgroth]: q-
16:30:22 [satya]: q+
16:30:41 [pgroth]: q+
16:31:38 [dgarijo]: satya: what happens if in account1 I make all the assertions in account2. What would be the relation between them?
16:32:19 [Luc]: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="html4" ])
16:32:20 [satya]: @Daniel: thanks Daniel!
16:32:28 [dgarijo]: @satya: np
16:32:31 [Luc]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication2.prov-asn
16:32:47 [Luc]: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ])
16:32:52 [stainPhone]: stainPhone has joined #prov
16:32:53 [Luc]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication1.prov-asn
16:33:15 [Luc]: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD", prov:type="html4" ])
16:33:41 [pgroth]: it's fine
16:33:49 [pgroth]: nothing happens
16:34:11 [MacTed]: Zakim, unmute me
16:34:11 [Zakim]: MacTed should no longer be muted
16:34:16 [MacTed]: q+
16:34:23 [Paolo]: @satya: no special action needed I guess
16:34:33 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
16:35:02 [Luc]: ack sat
16:35:04 [dgarijo]: @satya: well, accounts can be redundant, right?
16:35:11 [pgroth]: +1 to MacTed
16:35:49 [Luc]: q?
16:36:02 [Paolo]: @satya that's still fine we don't draw any conclusion from comparing the content of two accounts
16:36:39 [Luc]: ack pgr
16:37:24 [pgroth]: maybe we can get a summary
16:37:28 [pgroth]: of the problem
16:37:33 [satya]: MacTed: Misapprehension about the problem and the possible solution
16:37:36 [khalidbelhajjame]: -q
16:38:20 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport
16:38:52 [Luc]: q?
16:39:14 [Luc]: ack Mac
16:39:21 [GK]: (It seems to me that the different accounts per http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport correspond to differing epistemological positions)
16:39:30 [Paolo]: @Luc I suggest that we move to the specific proposals
16:40:07 [satya]: @GK: I agree
16:40:09 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
16:40:40 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable and have an identifier.
16:42:25 [Luc]: q?
16:42:27 [satya]: Luc: Identifiers seem to denote entities and at other places it identifies records
16:42:27 [MacTed]: "have an identifier" -- better "have one or more identifiers"
16:42:28 [GK]: q+ to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes.
16:42:28 [satya]: q+
16:42:43 [Luc]: ack GK
16:42:43 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes.
16:43:09 [smiles]: q+
16:43:13 [satya]: GK: Not all elements in domain of discourse may be identifiable
16:44:13 [satya]: Luc: Current DM states that all entities have to be identifiable but may not have an identifier?
16:44:33 [satya]: Luc: If there is no identifier, then how can they be referred to?
16:44:42 [MacTed]: q+ identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
16:44:50 [MacTed]: q+ to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
16:45:06 [satya]: GK: Should identifiers in DM be same identifiers as in other serializations?
16:45:29 [GK]: Also, I asked if "entity records" are *in* the domain of discourse
16:45:31 [satya]: @GK: If they are blank node identifiers what is their state outside of the specific RDF document?
16:45:55 [GK]: I agree that *accounts* are in the domain of discourse. Are these same as records?
16:46:00 [stainPhone]: generation event of entity is akwsys identifiable as long as the entity is
16:46:04 [Luc]: q?
16:46:07 [satya]: Luc: Need to discuss the provenance of accounts, hence accounts are part of universe of discourse
16:46:19 [stainPhone]: (have to go)
16:47:00 [MacTed]: once I have an Account, I have an AccountCreator -- tho the latter may be "unknown" in all senses other than <entity> "CreatedAccount" <account>
16:47:06 [Luc]: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ])
16:48:24 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
16:49:05 [Luc]: ack sat
16:49:06 [GK]: (Seems to me: an entity record (not in domain of discourse) introduces a name that denotes the described entity in domain of discourse. Unclear to me is whether this name is expected to carry though into any concrete representation (e.g. RDF)) I think this is what Luc is saying about proposal 1.
16:49:42 [satya]: Simon: There are objects in domain of discourse that may not have identifiers?
16:49:53 [GK]: q+
16:49:57 [GK]: q-
16:50:03 [satya]: @Simon Sorry didn't get your example
16:50:32 [MacTed]: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers."
16:50:34 [Paolo]: +q
16:50:49 [satya]: @Mac: +1
16:50:49 [pgroth]: +1 to MacTed
16:51:16 [dgarijo]: @satya: he said that if a wasRevisionOf b, then the activity that generated a (revisionActivity) could not be identified
16:51:19 [Zakim]: - +44.789.470.aabb
16:51:25 [GK]: (@simon: I think DM may require/introduce identifiers for things that are described by DM records, not necessarily for everything in domain of discourse)
16:51:35 [Paolo]: +q to answer "yes" to Simon: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly
16:51:36 [satya]: @Daniel: thanks! :)
16:51:55 [Luc]: ack smil
16:52:25 [GK]: @macted +1
16:52:27 [satya]: MacTed: If something is identifiable does not mean they have an assigned identifier
16:52:29 [dgarijo]: @simon: so maybe in your example the activity is identifiable, but we may not know the identifier.
16:52:41 [dgarijo]: @MacTed +1
16:53:11 [AndroUser2]: AndroUser2 has joined #prov
16:53:44 [satya]: Luc: If there is no identifier then how are they referred
16:53:47 [pgroth]: you give it one
16:53:52 [GK]: q+ to answer luc: a record /introduces/ an identifier
16:53:57 [satya]: @Mac, Paul: exactly +1
16:54:16 [Paolo]: @simon: may have not been clear earlier: we do not know the id of entities that must exist (existential quantifier) but are not the object of any assertion, i.e., they remain implicit
16:54:17 [smiles]: @dgarijo OK, so under what you are suggesting, you mean that if we want to refer to the activity implied by a revisionOf relation, then we would introduce an identifier at that point?
16:54:44 [khalidbelhajjame]: q-
16:54:45 [MacTed]: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers. For purposes of discourse, an identifier SHOULD be assigned to the object of discourse." ?
16:55:01 [GK]: "There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use or introduce an identifer for the objects described"
16:55:04 [pgroth]: @MacTed good start
16:55:18 [dgarijo]: @smiles: I guess so. You can invent one.
16:55:52 [tlebo]: yea!
16:55:53 [Luc]: q?
16:55:55 [pgroth]: +1 to Graham
16:56:03 [tlebo]: +1 @gk
16:56:04 [satya]: @GK: +1
16:56:05 [GK]: @macted - yes
16:56:17 [Paolo]: @GK only entity records? how about activities etc.
16:56:53 [GK]: @paolo ack.
16:56:58 [dgarijo]: @Paolo: that a nice point: do we have an "alternateOf" for activities?
16:57:10 [satya]: MacTed: Implied objects may not have identifiers
16:57:16 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described
16:57:18 [GK]: + "Implied entioties need not have an assigned idnetifier."
16:58:10 [Luc]: q?
16:58:10 [tlebo]: ?
16:58:15 [Luc]: ack Ma
16:58:15 [Zakim]: MacTed, you wanted to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
16:58:19 [GK]: q-
16:58:30 [Luc]: ack Pao
16:58:30 [Zakim]: Paolo, you wanted to answer "yes" to Simon: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly
16:58:43 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described
16:58:52 [satya]: q+
16:58:53 [tlebo]: "use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer" --> "introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifer"
16:59:07 [Paolo]: @daniel: possibly, but this ID issue is not brought in "just" for alternateOf, rather it's a general principle that we decide to adopt
16:59:48 [tlebo]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifier for the objects described.
16:59:53 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
17:00:03 [Paolo]: q+
17:00:10 [tlebo]: "provenace records"
17:00:17 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
17:00:19 [pgroth]: +q
17:00:20 [Paolo]: q?
17:00:21 [satya]: @Tim, +1
17:00:22 [Luc]: q?
17:00:32 [Luc]: ack sat
17:00:48 [MacTed]: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
17:01:00 [Paolo]: q-
17:01:03 [satya]: Paolo: Any object should be subject to the identifier rule
17:01:04 [Luc]: ack pgr
17:01:07 [MacTed]: (maybe change the second MUST to SHOULD)
17:01:43 [MacTed]: (yes, I'm deliberately removing extraneous "there is a requirement that" wording from the text.)
17:01:44 [GK]: q+ to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet.
17:01:50 [satya]: Paul: Concerned that implicit elements may have identifiers and proposal 1 does not cover that?
17:01:54 [smiles]: Agreed with Luc - as long as record is explicit, it is fine
17:01:56 [Luc]: q?
17:02:05 [tlebo]: +1 to including RFC2119 (like MacTed's)
17:02:28 [Luc]: q?
17:02:30 [Luc]: ack gk
17:02:30 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet.
17:02:36 [Luc]: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
17:02:46 [satya]: GK: Concerned that it does not lead to additional entailments from this proposal?
17:02:50 [smiles]: +1
17:02:52 [Paolo]: +1
17:02:53 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
17:02:54 [Luc]: PROPOSAL: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
17:02:57 [MacTed]: I need a clear PROPOSAL to vote on...
17:02:57 [satya]: +1
17:03:02 [GK]: +1
17:03:02 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
17:03:03 [MacTed]: -1
17:03:03 [smiles]: +1
17:03:04 [tlebo]: -1 should include RFC2119 terms
17:03:13 [MacTed]: the language semms deliberately obscuring
17:03:15 [dgarijo]: +1, although I liked more MacTed's
17:03:23 [sandro]: +1
17:03:46 [sandro]: (agreed -- this is not the final wording, just the idea.)
17:03:48 [tlebo]: +1 for intent (please add RFC2119 like MacTed's)
17:03:56 [zednik]: +1
17:04:00 [Paolo]: so the vote is on the "general principle" only?
17:04:25 [GK]: @macted - I think the intent is same as what you said: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
17:04:39 [MacTed]: PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
17:04:51 [GK]: +1
17:05:51 [satya]: I thought we were voting for the final version of the proposal?
17:06:00 [sandro]: sandro: I don't think RFC 2119 language works unless it's clear who/what is constrained to follow it.
17:06:00 [Paolo]: q+
17:06:01 [tlebo]: +1 to acknowledging these two have the intent and moving on.
17:06:33 [satya]: Paolo: Is the current formulation reconciling record and entity?
17:06:49 [pgroth]: whatever you want
17:06:55 [satya]: Paolo: Which identifier needs to be re-used?
17:06:57 [pgroth]: @Paolo: whatever you want
17:07:14 [Luc]: q?
17:07:14 [tlebo]: @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties.
17:07:43 [pgroth]: @paolo whatever you want
17:07:45 [satya]: Paolo: What criteria is used to choose to re-use an identifier?
17:07:49 [Luc]: q?
17:07:50 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
17:07:52 [Luc]: ack pao
17:08:02 [tlebo]: @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties.
17:08:14 [Luc]: ack kh
17:08:23 [MacTed]: PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
17:08:29 [tlebo]: alternateOf!
17:08:38 [GK]: The point is, I think, when the intent of assertion is to refer to something already described, to re-use the identifier already used. This is how names work, no?
17:08:40 [tlebo]: (not complementOf)
17:08:59 [tlebo]: @GK, "GK, who?" ;-)
17:09:03 [satya]: Khalid: Should use same identifier for same entity?
17:09:15 [Luc]: q?
17:09:16 [Paolo]: @tlebo makes sense, in principle
17:09:19 [GK]: @tlebo the same GK as referred to previously :)
17:09:23 [MacTed]: if you know someone used a name for the thing (and what that name is), then sure, you might choose to reuse their naming. what if you don't know they did, nor what name they chose
17:09:29 [MacTed]: ?
17:09:36 [satya]: Khalid: Not including a criteria for re-using identifier is fine
17:09:41 [Luc]: q?
17:09:53 [Luc]: PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
17:09:56 [dgarijo]: +1
17:10:04 [GK]: +1
17:10:05 [satya]: q+
17:10:05 [MacTed]: +1
17:10:11 [Paolo]: +1
17:10:14 [smiles]: +1 (for intent)
17:10:16 [jcheney]: +1
17:10:20 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
17:10:29 [tlebo]: +1 to intent, just like Luc's
17:10:35 [dgarijo]: satya: is object description just an example?
17:10:38 [satya]: +1
17:10:44 [zednik]: +1
17:10:48 [MacTed]: s/"entity records" and otherwise/e.g., "entity records" and otherwise/
17:10:48 [sandro]: +1
17:11:03 [Luc]: ACCEPTED: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." (intent)
17:12:20 [Luc]: PROPOSAL: Generation and Usage events also belong to the universe of discourse. So they should be given identifiers (as per proposal 1)
17:12:29 [satya]: q+
17:12:44 [Luc]: q?
17:12:57 [jcheney]: This is in line with the current formal semantics.
17:13:12 [Luc]: q?
17:13:15 [Luc]: ack saty
17:13:32 [smiles]: I agree, it seems a natural consequence of proposal 1
17:13:36 [satya]: q+
17:13:39 [pgroth]: @smiles +1
17:14:39 [dgarijo]: the only problem I see is the identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers.
17:14:45 [GK]: I think there are two remaining areas for discussion: (a) what are the objects in the domain of discourse, and (b) what identifiers may be used in DM and how to the relate to, e.g., URIs used in RDF.
17:15:00 [pgroth]: @GK - Nice point
17:15:23 [smiles]: @dgarijo Isn't that just an unavoidable problem for anything identifiable?
17:15:27 [tlebo]: @dgarijo, what is wrong with "identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers." ?
17:15:51 [MacTed]: I think that "objects in the domain of discourse" actually include Events (Generation, Usage, and otherwise), Derivations, Notes, and otherwise
17:15:55 [dgarijo]: how would I say that both activities are the same? owl:sameAs?
17:16:01 [Luc]: q?
17:16:05 [satya]: q-
17:16:07 [Luc]: ack satya
17:16:10 [tlebo]: prov:alternativeOf or owl:sameAs
17:16:11 [GK]: @MacTed - I think so too.
17:16:16 [Luc]: q?
17:16:19 [dgarijo]: alternativeof is for entities ;)
17:16:22 [Zakim]: -tlebo
17:16:23 [Zakim]: -sandro
17:16:25 [Zakim]: - +1.518.633.aaaa
17:16:26 [MacTed]: 2 accounts using 2 identifiers for the same entity is an implementation issue -- i.e., someone needs a Reasoning Engine
17:16:27 [Zakim]: -dgarijo
17:16:29 [Zakim]: -khalidbelhajjame
17:16:31 [Zakim]: -Satya_Sahoo
17:16:32 [Zakim]: -MacTed
17:16:32 [Zakim]: -jcheney
17:16:33 [Zakim]: -Paolo
17:16:34 [Zakim]: -AlexHall
17:16:36 [Zakim]: -??P6
17:16:38 [Zakim]: -Luc
17:16:40 [Zakim]: -pgroth
17:16:43 [MacTed]: to handle the owl:sameAs (or other) relationships
17:16:49 [Zakim]: -??P18
17:16:57 [Zakim]: -GK
17:16:57 [Zakim]: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:16:59 [Zakim]: Attendees were pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, AlexHall, tlebo, dgarijo, sandro, jcheney, MacTed, +1.518.633.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +44.789.470.aabb, GK
17:17:00 [Luc]: rrsagent, set log public
17:17:04 [Luc]: rrsagent, draft minutes
17:17:04 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-prov-minutes.html Luc
17:17:10 [Luc]: trackbot, end telcon
17:17:10 [trackbot]: Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
17:17:51 [GK]: @MacTed re need for reasonber...
17:17:53 [MacTed]: a la, "Bush:43" owl:sameAs "George Walker Bush" owl:sameAs "Dubya" owl:sameAs "Shrub"
17:19:03 [GK]: ... I think that depends on how identifiers relate. E.g., originally, IIRC, DM said (e.g.) entity identifiers were scoped to account.
17:19:56 [MacTed]: all the more so, then -- as you then need to handle { Account1:"Bush:43" owl:sameAs Account2:"Bush:43" }
17:20:28 [GK]: if that's true in DM, we may want to specify generation of different URIs or nodes in mapping to RDF. But for other mappings to non-URI names, maybe not so.
17:21:11 [GK]: If what you mean is that when different names are used for the same thing, then a reasoner is needed to detect and apply this knowledge, then yes. (For some value of "reasoner")
17:21:13 [MacTed]: the smaller the defined scope for a given identifier, the more important that equivalence (or other relation) can be handled
17:22:32 [GK]: Yes... but this isn't a provenance-specific issue, except to the extent that provenance DM shooses to use scoping when the same thing may be referenced in different accounts?
17:25:06 [MacTed]: absolutely true -- not provenance-specific issue. but entirely relevant and definitely present, and I think it *may* be best-addressed (or at least, most obvious and possibly most clearly definable) in the context of provenance.
19:20:10 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #prov