IRC log of prov on 2012-01-26
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:59:53 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #prov
- 15:59:53 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-irc
- 15:59:55 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 15:59:55 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #prov
- 15:59:57 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 15:59:57 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 15:59:58 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
- 15:59:58 [trackbot]
- Date: 26 January 2012
- 16:00:02 [pgroth]
- Zakim, this will be PROV
- 16:00:07 [Zakim]
- ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
- 16:00:22 [Curt]
- scribe: Curt
- 16:00:23 [pgroth]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.25
- 16:00:43 [pgroth]
- Chair: Paul Groth
- 16:00:52 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 16:01:30 [Mike]
- Mike has joined #prov
- 16:01:44 [Curt]
- Regrets: Graham Klyne, Paolo Missier, Khalid Belhajjame, Daniel Garijo
- 16:01:51 [Zakim]
- + +1.443.708.aaaa
- 16:01:58 [Christine]
- Christine has joined #prov
- 16:02:03 [smiles]
- smiles has joined #prov
- 16:02:05 [Zakim]
- + +1.646.389.aabb
- 16:02:11 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 16:02:13 [MacTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 16:02:15 [MacTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 16:02:21 [Zakim]
- +tlebo
- 16:02:29 [Zakim]
- +??P51
- 16:02:37 [Zakim]
- + +1.518.633.aacc
- 16:03:05 [Zakim]
- +MacTed; got it
- 16:03:08 [jcheney]
- jcheney has joined #prov
- 16:03:11 [Zakim]
- MacTed should now be muted
- 16:03:13 [Zakim]
- +??P54
- 16:03:39 [pgroth]
- Zakim, who is on the call?
- 16:03:54 [pgroth]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 16:04:08 [davidschaengold]
- davidschaengold has joined #prov
- 16:04:16 [Zakim]
- +??P60
- 16:04:25 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
- 16:04:30 [jcheney]
- zakim, ??P60 is me
- 16:04:52 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
- 16:04:55 [davidschaengold]
- Zakim, aabb is me
- 16:04:57 [kai]
- kai has joined #prov
- 16:04:59 [satya]
- satya has joined #prov
- 16:05:43 [pgroth]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-19
- 16:05:45 [Zakim]
- +jcheney; got it
- 16:05:52 [pgroth]
- PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon
- 16:05:54 [satya]
- +1
- 16:05:57 [davidschaengold]
- +1
- 16:05:58 [Curt]
- 0 (not present)
- 16:06:13 [Christine]
- 0 (not present)
- 16:06:13 [kai]
- 0 (not present)
- 16:06:15 [smiles]
- +1
- 16:06:16 [jcheney]
- +1
- 16:06:18 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see davidschaengold, jcheney, smiles, Christine, Mike, Zakim, RRSAgent, zednik, pgroth, GK_, Curt, Luc, MacTed, mdmdm, stain, trackbot, sandro
- 16:06:24 [Zakim]
- +davidschaengold; got it
- 16:06:32 [Zakim]
- +Satya_Sahoo
- 16:06:58 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 16:07:02 [Zakim]
- +??P73
- 16:07:05 [pgroth]
- Accepted: minutes Jan 19 telecon
- 16:07:15 [stephenc]
- stephenc has joined #prov
- 16:07:26 [kai]
- Zakim, ??P73 is me.
- 16:07:41 [Curt]
- pgroth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :)
- 16:07:58 [Zakim]
- +kai; got it
- 16:08:27 [Curt]
- pgroth: actions: satya reviewing issues
- 16:08:50 [Curt]
- satya: will try to respond to each on list, but time is short, progress on many of them
- 16:09:13 [Curt]
- ... many already addressed, satya just needs to review and make proper recommendations
- 16:09:18 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:09:30 [pgroth]
- Topic: F2F prep document updates
- 16:09:48 [Curt]
- pgroth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F
- 16:10:04 [Curt]
- ... prov-primer
- 16:11:15 [satya]
- q+
- 16:11:27 [Curt]
- working out updates needed, not changed since last editors version
- 16:11:58 [Curt]
- satya: rdfs already provides way to do annotations, not currently modeled like that
- 16:12:29 [pgroth]
- ack satya
- 16:13:11 [Curt]
- satya: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer,
- 16:13:28 [Curt]
- pgroth: prov-aq
- 16:14:03 [Curt]
- ...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after
- 16:14:04 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:14:11 [Curt]
- ... in good shape for F2F
- 16:14:19 [Curt]
- pgroth: prov-dm
- 16:14:29 [Curt]
- luc: third working draft to release today for F2F
- 16:14:36 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:14:40 [Curt]
- pgroth: prov-o
- 16:15:23 [Curt]
- many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss
- 16:15:24 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:15:28 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:15:33 [Curt]
- current version has edits
- 16:15:55 [Curt]
- luc: no update for precise/imprecise derivations
- 16:16:08 [Curt]
- satya: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined
- 16:16:29 [Curt]
- luc: some decisions made
- 16:16:53 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:16:57 [Curt]
- satya: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion
- 16:17:02 [Curt]
- pgroth: prov-sem
- 16:17:32 [Curt]
- jcheney: not much changed recently, watching prov-o domain of discourse discussion, which may have an impact
- 16:17:44 [Curt]
- jcheney: waiting for final determination to incorporate
- 16:17:56 [Curt]
- jcheney: a few more things to flesh out that will happen prior to F2F
- 16:18:14 [Curt]
- pgroth: most documents in reasonable sync. given work that has been done
- 16:18:37 [pgroth]
- Topic: Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft
- 16:19:22 [Luc]
- http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-second-public-working-draft
- 16:20:30 [Curt]
- luc: work on complement, specialization, examples, derivation, collections, restructuring, new section 7 with constraints on data model
- 16:20:53 [Curt]
- ... ... agent and hadPlan
- 16:21:11 [pgroth]
- Proposed: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
- 16:21:19 [smiles]
- +1
- 16:21:24 [satya]
- q+
- 16:21:24 [jcheney]
- +1
- 16:21:25 [MacTed]
- +1
- 16:21:28 [Curt]
- +1
- 16:21:32 [kai]
- +1
- 16:21:53 [Curt]
- satya: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers?
- 16:22:05 [pgroth]
- ack satya
- 16:22:30 [Curt]
- luc: no, those aren't incorporated yet, those will go into the 4th WD, identifiers and accounts
- 16:23:12 [Curt]
- ... too many changes to incorporate, still determining final agreement on identifiers/accounts, may take a while
- 16:23:37 [satya]
- +1
- 16:23:38 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:23:40 [Curt]
- satya: yes, those may have broad impact
- 16:24:03 [pgroth]
- Accepted: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
- 16:24:21 [satya]
- q+
- 16:24:48 [Curt]
- satya: good to freeze changes at a defined point and release a good draft
- 16:25:01 [Curt]
- ... we should follow that model for prov-o
- 16:25:07 [pgroth]
- ack satya
- 16:25:13 [Curt]
- pgroth: required by W3C to release each 3 months
- 16:25:21 [Curt]
- luc: good to have well-defined goals for each release
- 16:25:31 [pgroth]
- Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
- 16:25:40 [Luc]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/UniverseOfDiscourse
- 16:26:06 [Luc]
- I hope I included all the votes (I just added James')
- 16:26:06 [pgroth]
- *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all
- 16:26:07 [pgroth]
- participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and
- 16:26:07 [pgroth]
- otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an
- 16:26:07 [pgroth]
- existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects
- 16:26:07 [pgroth]
- described." (intent)
- 16:27:07 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:27:18 [Curt]
- pgroth: a series of items were considered to determine what should be part of the universe of discourse
- 16:27:28 [pgroth]
- Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
- 16:27:48 [Luc]
- all votes were positive
- 16:28:34 [MacTed]
- I have failed to keep up with the list this week, and see argument with several of these proposals...
- 16:28:43 [Curt]
- (many who voted are not present)
- 16:28:57 [MacTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 16:28:57 [Zakim]
- MacTed should no longer be muted
- 16:29:08 [Curt]
- luc/pgroth: record previous vote for minutes rather than re-voting here
- 16:29:42 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED: Proposal 1. Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
- 16:30:01 [pgroth]
- Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
- 16:30:01 [pgroth]
- Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
- 16:30:02 [pgroth]
- discourse
- 16:30:06 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED:
- 16:30:27 [MacTed]
- I accept Proposals 1-4, and have concerns or issues with 5-9
- 16:30:32 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED: Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of discourse
- 16:30:48 [satya]
- q+
- 16:31:21 [satya]
- q-
- 16:31:24 [pgroth]
- ack satay
- 16:31:33 [Curt]
- satya: with respect to prov-o, those were included
- 16:31:37 [Luc]
- Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains, Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation, Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After removal belong to the universe of discourse.
- 16:32:11 [Curt]
- luc: Stian voted -1 (for all but associations)
- 16:32:36 [Curt]
- ... not sure of his rationale
- 16:33:35 [Curt]
- tim: laundry list is long, a concern to determine how each should be modeled in prov-o
- 16:34:06 [Curt]
- luc: satya suppoted derivation, association and activity ordering, do you support those?
- 16:34:07 [Curt]
- tim: yes
- 16:34:31 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:34:43 [Curt]
- luc: why doesn't stian think association should not be part of universe of discourse?
- 16:34:57 [Curt]
- pgroth: possibly rephrase proposal 3 and re-vote?
- 16:35:17 [Curt]
- luc: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those
- 16:35:17 [Luc]
- Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the unvierse of discourse
- 16:35:44 [Curt]
- luc: we'll discuss with stian further and rephrase rest of proposal 3
- 16:36:17 [Curt]
- tim: accepts association
- 16:36:26 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:36:35 [Luc]
- ACCEPTED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse
- 16:36:40 [pgroth]
- Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
- 16:36:40 [pgroth]
- discourse
- 16:37:13 [tlebo]
- tlebo has joined #prov
- 16:37:20 [Curt]
- pgroth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now
- 16:37:20 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:37:33 [Luc]
- Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record.
- 16:38:02 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:38:09 [Curt]
- pgroth: satya and macted disagree
- 16:38:44 [Curt]
- satya: we need a construct to aggregate prov. assertions, if we remove records/accounts, we won't have a good way to do that
- 16:39:21 [Curt]
- macted: is this to differentiate data/metadata in a given context?
- 16:39:23 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:39:27 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:39:45 [Curt]
- ... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata
- 16:39:58 [zednik]
- q+
- 16:39:58 [Curt]
- luc: we're trying to establish that
- 16:40:07 [Curt]
- macted: we need to make that distinction
- 16:40:23 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:40:41 [Curt]
- luc: we are talking about different levels, the world where things happen; level 2 descriptions of what happened in the world
- 16:40:54 [Curt]
- ... account records are at that second level
- 16:41:05 [Curt]
- ... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance
- 16:41:31 [Curt]
- macted: that isn't clear in these proposals
- 16:41:38 [Curt]
- luc: we're trying to represent that intent
- 16:42:10 [Curt]
- macted: things/entities are interchangeable, the proposals aren't clear
- 16:42:34 [Curt]
- luc: we're trying to determine how to represent our intent into the documents
- 16:42:46 [Curt]
- macted: difficult with text alone
- 16:42:47 [jcheney]
- See also ISSUE-212
- 16:42:52 [tlebo]
- tlebo has joined #prov
- 16:42:56 [Curt]
- luc: yes, more graphics would help explain the concepts
- 16:43:26 [Curt]
- zednik: yes, confusing, perhaps graphics or ASN could help explain this better, esp. things like prov. of prov.
- 16:43:26 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:43:29 [jcheney]
- Is prov of prov on the critical path? I agree it's important but perhaps we should table it until one-layer prov is stable
- 16:43:32 [pgroth]
- ack zednik
- 16:43:42 [satya]
- q+
- 16:43:44 [Curt]
- pgroth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group
- 16:44:22 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:44:25 [Curt]
- macted: this is a perpetual problem in graphs, the recursion. These levels can be better described graphically
- 16:44:36 [Curt]
- luc: we haven't determined how to express prov. of prov. yet
- 16:45:09 [zednik]
- @jcheney from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Broad_Recommendations "Recommendation # 4: A provenance framework should include a standard way to express the provenance of provenance assertions, as there can be several accounts of provenance and with different granularity and that may possibly conflict"
- 16:45:21 [Curt]
- ... for some account records aren't part of discourse, but if you do want to talk about them, then you will have to identify them
- 16:45:34 [satya]
- q-
- 16:45:38 [zednik]
- q+
- 16:45:40 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:45:44 [Curt]
- ... do we want to have prov. of prov.? is that part of the scope we should cover?
- 16:45:47 [pgroth]
- ack zednik
- 16:46:06 [Curt]
- zednik: we don't want to preclude describing prov. of prov.
- 16:46:47 [Curt]
- luc: the term 'thing' -- if we use an account record, we need to make the 'thing' an entity so we can describe it
- 16:47:06 [Curt]
- ... looking for guidelines/recommendations of where we are going with this
- 16:47:12 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:47:41 [Curt]
- pgroth: if we remove notion of account record from proposal 5, would that be in line with our thinking?
- 16:47:47 [tlebo]
- +1 luc: the way to talk about things is by introducing entities. (we get provenance of provenance by making entities about the records - we effectively have shifted the two levels.)
- 16:47:57 [stephenc]
- We have a use case for provenance-of-provenance on legislation
- 16:47:58 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:48:10 [pgroth]
- Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
- 16:48:35 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:49:07 [Curt]
- macted: this is the recursion problem. prov. of a thing is itself a thing (an entity) when asserting provenance about it
- 16:49:19 [satya]
- q+
- 16:49:20 [Curt]
- macted: difficult to express without a picture
- 16:49:35 [Curt]
- luc: we need more guidance to even draw the picture
- 16:49:50 [tlebo]
- +1 (if i want to talk about Records, I make an entity about it)
- 16:50:02 [pgroth]
- i agree with you tlebo
- 16:50:05 [Curt]
- ... if all records have an identity, that is a different direction that if records are not part of the universe of discourse
- 16:50:33 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:50:40 [Curt]
- macted: example - i have a table, built 1727, joe smith, sold on jan 19, 1728, sold again, again, again
- 16:50:50 [Curt]
- ... we track that journey through the world -- the provenance
- 16:50:58 [Curt]
- ... the records of that provenance are a distinct entity
- 16:51:11 [Curt]
- ... the provenance of the provenance are that I said it was built in 1727
- 16:51:22 [Curt]
- ... that shift the perspective up a level
- 16:51:30 [kai]
- +1 for provenance on provenance.
- 16:51:42 [Curt]
- ... one level talks about the table, one about the provenance, one about the provenance of the records of the provenance.
- 16:51:45 [kai]
- That's metadata provenance
- 16:51:59 [tlebo]
- (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift)
- 16:52:03 [Curt]
- macted: this can be difficult to follow
- 16:52:25 [tlebo]
- @macted, good example
- 16:52:35 [Curt]
- pgroth: that use case is clear, but how do we best communicate that? what construct should prov-dm have?
- 16:52:56 [Curt]
- macted: use a concrete example to figure that out, rather than trying to solve in the abstract
- 16:53:14 [Curt]
- ... have to look at both sides to make sure it all works
- 16:53:24 [pgroth]
- q
- 16:53:24 [Curt]
- ... doing the abstract first makes this harder
- 16:53:26 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:53:32 [pgroth]
- ack satya
- 16:53:49 [zednik]
- +1 to use concrete example before decidiing on abstract model restrictions
- 16:53:52 [Curt]
- satya: the way to talk about things is to introduce entities
- 16:54:13 [Curt]
- ... when we want to talk about prov-of-prov, we need to have a universal construct for that
- 16:54:38 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:54:41 [Curt]
- ... we have been discussing this notion already. records should be part of the universe of discourse
- 16:54:49 [jcheney]
- q+
- 16:55:00 [pgroth]
- ack jcheney
- 16:55:10 [tlebo]
- @satya, did you say that you need Account Records AND Accounts in UOD?
- 16:55:25 [Curt]
- jcheney: I said I agree there is a difference between saying all records are part of the UofD, or if some could be
- 16:55:44 [Curt]
- ... some ambiguity. Some entities might contain information about provenance records contained elsewhere
- 16:55:53 [Curt]
- ... in order to express prov-of-prov
- 16:56:04 [kai]
- q+
- 16:56:41 [Curt]
- ... this isn't something we have to decide now to make progress, could we say "by default records aren't necessarily identified entities in the UofD, but they might be"
- 16:56:42 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:57:07 [tlebo]
- +1 james: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them (this shifts the perspective)
- 16:57:29 [Curt]
- kai: we have a similar problem in dublin core, we can describe everything, but then we have to describe the description
- 16:57:29 [Zakim]
- -??P51
- 16:58:06 [tlebo]
- +1 "it's nothing special'!
- 16:58:07 [Curt]
- ... we need to be able to describe prov-of-prov, need to consider the prov itself as an entity.
- 16:58:17 [Curt]
- ... if we do that, then we don't have a problem
- 16:58:46 [Curt]
- ... keep it simple, just say that prov. itself can be an entity, then you can describe it just like you describe the prov. of any entity
- 16:58:48 [tlebo]
- +1 keep it simple (knowing that it can be shifted)
- 16:58:48 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:58:51 [pgroth]
- ack kai
- 16:58:53 [Curt]
- ... simply handles the recursion
- 16:59:12 [pgroth]
- by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them
- 16:59:33 [smiles]
- +1
- 16:59:47 [tlebo]
- records are only a means of transmission. We only care about the content of the transmission.
- 16:59:50 [Curt]
- pgroth: trying to capture this -- james' proposal allows us to shift perspective, is that ok? is that sufficient guidance for luc?
- 16:59:53 [MacTed]
- see SKOS - containers of entities, which are containers of entities, which are containers...
- 17:00:03 [Curt]
- luc: yes, that and the emails
- 17:00:16 [Zakim]
- -??P54
- 17:00:24 [tlebo]
- I'm at the top of the hour
- 17:00:26 [jcheney]
- OK with me (that's actually tlebo's wording, but I like it)
- 17:00:27 [MacTed]
- er, sorry, SIOC not SKOS
- 17:00:28 [kai]
- Don't make the mistake that in the end you can describe the provenance of everything, the only exception would be the provenance (records).
- 17:00:40 [Zakim]
- -MacTed
- 17:00:51 [Curt]
- pgroth: next few proposals need even more discussion
- 17:01:27 [pgroth]
- Proposal: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them
- 17:01:38 [tlebo]
- +1
- 17:01:42 [jcheney]
- +1
- 17:01:44 [trackbot]
- trackbot has joined #prov
- 17:02:03 [Curt]
- satya: what does "by default" mean?
- 17:02:10 [tlebo]
- "the current layers of the shift"
- 17:02:31 [Curt]
- pgroth: when you describe provenance, you use things like entities, derivations, etc. not records
- 17:02:38 [jcheney]
- I think it means that you can't infer that a record is in the domain of discourse. You have to assert it.
- 17:02:40 [Zakim]
- -davidschaengold
- 17:02:56 [Curt]
- ... but if you want to describe prov-of-prov, you would (in some fashion) make the records into entities and use those
- 17:03:31 [satya]
- 0
- 17:03:35 [tlebo]
- If we argue for a third layer, we are not being compact and eloquent. And we could argue for the fourth, and fifth. It won't end.
- 17:03:35 [Curt]
- satya: decision not critical to move on
- 17:03:46 [Curt]
- pgroth: this is important for modeling
- 17:03:54 [pgroth]
- q
- 17:03:56 [pgroth]
- q?
- 17:04:05 [jcheney]
- @satya: There is a difference between saying records "MAY" be in hte domain of discourse and records MUST be in the domain of discourse.
- 17:04:05 [kai]
- -1
- 17:04:10 [Luc]
- @tlebo: i dont think we would introudce more layers, but a "shift operator"
- 17:04:32 [Curt]
- kai: I can describe the provenance of data, not just things
- 17:04:54 [Curt]
- kai: provenance of data is itself data, so we can describe it the same way
- 17:05:11 [tlebo]
- @ speaker, because we already have what we need to discuss provenance (Entities)
- 17:05:25 [zednik]
- -1 (show concrete example before making modeling decision, not other way around)
- 17:05:29 [Curt]
- pgroth: we have "provenance records". last week we said things in the UofD are identified
- 17:05:53 [Curt]
- ... if we say records are part of the UofD, then we have to give them identifiers -- that affects the modeling
- 17:06:04 [Curt]
- kai: what is the problem giving them an identifier?
- 17:06:16 [Curt]
- pgroth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers
- 17:06:32 [pgroth]
- entity(w3c.org)
- 17:06:55 [tlebo]
- (apologies)
- 17:06:59 [Curt]
- pgroth: is that in our UofD?
- 17:07:00 [Zakim]
- -tlebo
- 17:07:26 [satya]
- Sorry, I have to leave.
- 17:07:34 [Curt]
- kai: I can only describe identifiable things, so if we want to describe them, we have to identify them
- 17:07:57 [Curt]
- ... just a collection of statements might not have an identifier, so we'll have to identify them if we want to describe them
- 17:07:58 [jcheney]
- alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
- 17:08:03 [Zakim]
- -Satya_Sahoo
- 17:08:25 [Curt]
- pgroth: some agreement, but try different wording
- 17:08:27 [pgroth]
- records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse
- 17:08:30 [jcheney]
- alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
- 17:08:52 [jcheney]
- is that at least clearer than "by default"?
- 17:09:11 [Curt]
- kai: I think records are in the UofD, but only if they have an identity
- 17:09:42 [Curt]
- kai: "every record that has its own identity is in the UofD"
- 17:10:06 [Curt]
- luc: we were using accounts to handle this, not every single record
- 17:10:25 [Curt]
- ... we weren't going to have provenance of other records
- 17:11:01 [Curt]
- ... if we revisit this, we need to change more of the data model. we were previously only using accounts as a way to describe prov-of-prov
- 17:11:13 [Curt]
- ... are we questioning those decisions made 6 months ago?
- 17:11:39 [jcheney]
- It may not have been clear to everyone whether "records" included or excluded accounts in this discussion (it wasn't to me)
- 17:11:42 [Curt]
- ... the latest draft still says the only way to describe provenance itself is through accounts
- 17:12:07 [Curt]
- kai: something that has a URI, an identity, is something that exists. why restrict how you can describe that thing?
- 17:12:34 [Curt]
- luc: we aren't considering resources in general, just the way we model those things in prov-dm
- 17:12:46 [MacTed]
- SIOC Ontology -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/ -- may save us reinventing many wheels....
- 17:12:57 [Curt]
- luc: are we making provenance records part of the UofD. Can we represent prov. of accounts?
- 17:13:11 [MacTed]
- of particular use -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-overview
- 17:13:28 [Curt]
- ... are account records part of the UofD?
- 17:13:42 [Curt]
- kai: Is there a problem if that are not in the UofD?
- 17:14:24 [Curt]
- luc: we are breaking early design decisions. saying they are part of UofD, we say that all records have to have identifiers
- 17:14:43 [Curt]
- ... implications is every prov. record would have to have a named graph to give the set an identifier
- 17:15:02 [Curt]
- ... this is a radical departure to current work
- 17:15:08 [Curt]
- ^to^from
- 17:15:25 [Curt]
- luc: we need guidance on this
- 17:15:37 [Curt]
- kai: we can discuss at F2F
- 17:15:50 [Curt]
- ... we don't want to destroy current work
- 17:16:04 [Curt]
- ... we should be able to figure out something that works next week
- 17:16:34 [Zakim]
- - +1.443.708.aaaa
- 17:16:50 [Curt]
- pgroth: kai isn't saying we have to have identifiers for everything, we don't have to have mint identifiers for every prov. record
- 17:17:03 [Curt]
- ... we can use that as preliminary guidance
- 17:17:33 [Curt]
- kai: yes, that is what I think, they CAN have an identifier, with that you can describe the records' provenance
- 17:17:43 [jcheney]
- That sounds like what I was trying to say.
- 17:17:47 [Curt]
- ... we should indicate that it is possible to describe prov-of-prov
- 17:18:02 [jcheney]
- Might be good to give a small meta-prov example like MacTed's in PROV-DM?
- 17:18:12 [Curt]
- kai: we are mostly in agreement -- just need to detail
- 17:18:13 [pgroth]
- q?
- 17:18:28 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller.a]
- 17:18:30 [Zakim]
- -jcheney
- 17:18:32 [Zakim]
- - +1.518.633.aacc
- 17:18:33 [Zakim]
- -Luc
- 17:18:35 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 17:18:40 [Zakim]
- -kai
- 17:18:55 [pgroth]
- pgroth has joined #prov
- 17:19:01 [pgroth]
- curt
- 17:19:04 [pgroth]
- I'll take care of it
- 17:19:06 [Curt]
- ok
- 17:19:07 [Curt]
- bye
- 17:19:35 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, set log public
- 17:19:41 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 17:19:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html pgroth
- 17:19:46 [pgroth]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 17:19:46 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 17:19:46 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, tlebo, +1.518.633.aacc, MacTed, jcheney, davidschaengold, Satya_Sahoo, kai
- 17:19:49 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 17:19:49 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html trackbot
- 17:19:50 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:19:50 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items