IRC log of prov on 2012-02-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:52:16 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #prov
- 15:52:16 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-irc
- 15:52:18 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 15:52:18 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #prov
- 15:52:20 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 15:52:20 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 15:52:21 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
- 15:52:21 [trackbot]
- Date: 16 February 2012
- 15:52:29 [pgroth]
- Zakim, this will be PROV
- 15:52:29 [Zakim]
- ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
- 15:52:45 [pgroth]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.16
- 15:52:55 [pgroth]
- Chair: Paul Groth
- 15:53:00 [pgroth]
- Scribe: Eric Stephan
- 15:53:11 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 15:53:20 [pgroth]
- Regrets: Mike Lang
- 15:54:06 [Zakim]
- SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
- 15:54:13 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 15:54:21 [pgroth]
- Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 15:54:21 [Zakim]
- +pgroth; got it
- 15:54:59 [Zakim]
- + +1.509.967.aaaa
- 15:55:46 [SamCoppens]
- SamCoppens has joined #prov
- 15:56:40 [Zakim]
- +Luc
- 15:58:20 [Curt]
- Curt has joined #prov
- 15:58:28 [Zakim]
- +??P28
- 15:58:56 [Zakim]
- +Curt_Tilmes
- 15:59:14 [Helena]
- Helena has joined #prov
- 15:59:26 [Zakim]
- + +329331aabb
- 15:59:33 [Zakim]
- +??P48
- 15:59:46 [SamCoppens]
- zakim, +329331aabb is me
- 15:59:46 [Zakim]
- +SamCoppens; got it
- 15:59:53 [Helena]
- zakim, ??P48 is me
- 15:59:53 [Zakim]
- +Helena; got it
- 16:00:08 [Zakim]
- -Helena
- 16:00:42 [dgarijo]
- dgarijo has joined #prov
- 16:01:05 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:01:16 [jun]
- jun has joined #prov
- 16:01:32 [Zakim]
- +??P63
- 16:01:47 [tlebo]
- tlebo has joined #prov
- 16:01:57 [smiles]
- smiles has joined #prov
- 16:02:10 [dgarijo]
- Zakim, ??P63 is probably me
- 16:02:21 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 16:02:41 [MacTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 16:02:44 [MacTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 16:02:56 [Zakim]
- +tlebo
- 16:03:04 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.a]
- 16:03:09 [Zakim]
- +dgarijo?; got it
- 16:03:31 [Zakim]
- +Helena
- 16:03:44 [MacTed]
- Zakim, who's noisy?
- 16:03:50 [Zakim]
- +MacTed; got it
- 16:03:54 [Zakim]
- MacTed should now be muted
- 16:03:55 [Helena]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 16:04:27 [pgroth]
- Topic: Admin
- 16:04:48 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: Paul still has to do the minues of the f2f2 meeting.
- 16:04:58 [Zakim]
- MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (51%), Luc (13%), [IPcaller] (54%)
- 16:04:59 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: will be getting to it asap
- 16:05:00 [pgroth]
- Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-09
- 16:05:12 [Zakim]
- Helena, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (39%), Luc (34%), [IPcaller] (11%)
- 16:05:19 [Curt]
- +1
- 16:05:23 [tlebo]
- +1
- 16:05:24 [ERICstephan]
- +1
- 16:05:26 [jun]
- +1
- 16:05:28 [Helena]
- +1
- 16:05:34 [SamCoppens]
- +1
- 16:05:56 [pgroth]
- Approved: Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon
- 16:06:03 [stephenc]
- stephenc has joined #prov
- 16:06:06 [pgroth]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
- 16:06:09 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: go over open actions, but not all
- 16:06:23 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: Action #52:
- 16:06:58 [dgarijo]
- +1 for the minutes too
- 16:07:18 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth:52 not closed yet because of 106
- 16:07:27 [ERICstephan]
- s/106/105
- 16:07:37 [jcheney]
- jcheney has joined #prov
- 16:07:39 [pgroth]
- Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
- 16:07:46 [MacTed]
- s/52/Action-52/
- 16:08:07 [MacTed]
- s/of 106/of Issue-105/
- 16:08:32 [satya]
- satya has joined #prov
- 16:08:48 [ERICstephan]
- bring in HCLS and hoping stephan can validdate.
- 16:08:52 [ERICstephan]
- Who was speaking?
- 16:08:55 [Zakim]
- +??P29
- 16:08:59 [jcheney]
- zakim, ??p29 is me
- 16:09:01 [Helena]
- ERICstephan: I was speaking
- 16:09:04 [dgarijo]
- that sounds very interesting indeed.
- 16:09:06 [ERICstephan]
- thank you
- 16:09:15 [Luc]
- date was not set
- 16:09:20 [Zakim]
- +Yolanda
- 16:09:48 [Zakim]
- +jcheney; got it
- 16:09:55 [Zakim]
- +Satya_Sahoo
- 16:10:33 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: action-63 due in one week's time
- 16:10:53 [pgroth]
- Topic: PROV-DM Simplification
- 16:10:54 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: need more scribes after next week
- 16:11:01 [dcorsar]
- dcorsar has joined #prov
- 16:11:02 [pgroth]
- ACTION-62: Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model
- 16:11:02 [trackbot]
- ACTION-62 Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb notes added
- 16:11:23 [MacTed]
- action-62?
- 16:11:23 [trackbot]
- ACTION-62 -- Luc Moreau to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb -- due 2012-02-16 -- OPEN
- 16:11:23 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/62
- 16:11:30 [Luc]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft4
- 16:11:31 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: update and produce intro to simplification
- 16:11:51 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: Wiki page describes current work
- 16:12:29 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: 3 parts, dropping the notion of account records
- 16:12:35 [Zakim]
- +??P38
- 16:12:50 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: 3 levels of description and removed one of the levels, positive feedback
- 16:13:23 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: 2nd doc, events, attributes been given values over periods of time, and constraints designed to data model
- 16:13:32 [Zakim]
- -Yolanda
- 16:13:59 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: Last section, scrappy vs proper provenance. Consider various levels of description provide different refinements
- 16:14:30 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: Move out the grammer and put it in a different document
- 16:14:42 [pgroth]
- +q
- 16:14:45 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:14:52 [pgroth]
- q-
- 16:15:02 [dgarijo]
- @Eric: I think it's scruffy, not scruppy ;)
- 16:15:24 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: at the moment, the working copy there is not an editors draft yet
- 16:15:39 [pgroth]
- Goals of the review:
- 16:15:41 [pgroth]
- decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective
- 16:15:46 [pgroth]
- recommend whether they become the new editor's draft
- 16:15:50 [ERICstephan]
- for the reviewers, do the documents align with the simplification goals
- 16:16:21 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: (these comments written by me from Luc)
- 16:16:54 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:16:55 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: If we can get agreement based on recommendations from the reviewers next week
- 16:17:00 [ERICstephan]
- +q
- 16:17:12 [MacTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 16:17:12 [Zakim]
- MacTed should no longer be muted
- 16:17:13 [MacTed]
- q+
- 16:17:17 [pgroth]
- ack ERICstephan
- 16:17:18 [Zakim]
- +??P51
- 16:17:34 [christine]
- christine has joined #prov
- 16:17:43 [pgroth]
- ack MacTed
- 16:18:18 [ERICstephan]
- MacTed: How do you give editor comments "this sentence is unweildy" (example)
- 16:18:24 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.aa]
- 16:18:27 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:18:29 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: Add it to wiki page
- 16:18:36 [zednik]
- zednik has joined #prov
- 16:18:51 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: assign specific reviewers with specific tasks
- 16:19:01 [Luc]
- @helena, these are internal reviewers
- 16:19:03 [MacTed]
- s/wiki page/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/
- 16:19:05 [pgroth]
- TimL
- 16:19:11 [tlebo]
- +1
- 16:19:49 [jun]
- I can also do it
- 16:19:51 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: confirm Tim +1, Eric +1, Graham ?, Daniel + 1, MacTed +1, Curt +1 (already done)
- 16:20:02 [SamCoppens]
- I can also
- 16:20:13 [pgroth]
- EricS, Daniel, Jun, MacTed, Curt, SamCoppens
- 16:20:23 [jun]
- the new structure looks good at a glance
- 16:20:52 [pgroth]
- Topic: PROV-O Ontology updated
- 16:20:55 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 16:21:09 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: next topic, updated OWL file
- 16:21:12 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:21:26 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: released and Satya update?
- 16:21:27 [jun]
- zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
- 16:21:27 [Zakim]
- sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
- 16:21:37 [jun]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 16:21:37 [Zakim]
- +jun; got it
- 16:22:04 [satya]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
- 16:22:16 [dgarijo]
- and the summaries of the call are at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
- 16:22:26 [ERICstephan]
- satya: after 2 weeks agreed on a series of changes
- 16:22:46 [pgroth]
- owl file is at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
- 16:23:04 [ERICstephan]
- satya: all incorporated in doc, there are still a number of issues, but for now the most recent changes have been reflected
- 16:23:10 [Luc]
- q?
- 16:23:44 [dgarijo]
- Changes (which are the titan pad logs): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-13, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-14
- 16:23:57 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: PROV-O, does it have a good alignment with PROV-DM working draft 3?
- 16:24:15 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: has the ontology provide a simplified naming?
- 16:24:40 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: does the ontology fit within OWL with itself and does it create some type of natural RDF?
- 16:25:01 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:25:08 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:25:15 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:25:16 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: reviewers, does it meet these goals any questions on review period
- 16:25:37 [ERICstephan]
- luc: what process are we going to use to align PROV-O and PROV-DM?
- 16:25:49 [dgarijo]
- +q
- 16:25:56 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: good question can we defer to next section?
- 16:26:01 [pgroth]
- ack dgarijo
- 16:26:31 [ERICstephan]
- dgarijo: alignment be discussed in PROV-O task force?
- 16:26:42 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: alignment could be both directions
- 16:27:22 [jcheney]
- alignment deliverable ==? ProvRDF?
- 16:27:25 [dgarijo]
- +1 to pgroth.
- 16:27:26 [ERICstephan]
- Luc: alignmnet deliverable and raise issues against that?
- 16:27:40 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:28:28 [dgarijo]
- smiles and Jun have already provided some feedback :)
- 16:28:29 [stephenc]
- OK
- 16:28:36 [Curt]
- I'll be going over PROV-O too.
- 16:28:55 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: another one week review, confirm, Luc +1, Paolo +1, Eric +1, Stephen C +1, Curt +1
- 16:28:58 [pgroth]
- Review prov-o: Luc, paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt
- 16:29:14 [satya]
- Thanks everyone for the reviewing!
- 16:29:29 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:29:31 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: same process applies, goes to list and we talk about it next week.
- 16:29:37 [pgroth]
- Topic: ProvRDF Mappings
- 16:30:49 [ERICstephan]
- jcheney: did this for a small subset for PROV-DM during f2f2.
- 16:31:05 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller.aa]
- 16:31:18 [ERICstephan]
- jcheney: Tim has been adding record form from PROV-DM to collections of RDF triples
- 16:31:22 [ERICstephan]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF
- 16:32:08 [zednik_]
- zednik_ has joined #prov
- 16:32:46 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:32:57 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:33:25 [dgarijo]
- yes, more or less.
- 16:33:28 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: Is what we see in the doc, in the right hand side of the page reflect the current prov-o ontology?
- 16:33:45 [tlebo]
- @paul, that is the intent. If the RHS are not aligned with the OWL file, ISSUES should be raised.
- 16:35:02 [ERICstephan]
- jcheney: left hand side match DM working draft 3
- 16:35:26 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:35:46 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: how do we sync prov-o prov-dm?
- 16:35:48 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:36:22 [jcheney]
- q+
- 16:36:22 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: in the issue tracker, make a new deliverable for mappings, if inconsistencies report them there.
- 16:36:23 [satya]
- +1 @Paul
- 16:36:24 [dgarijo]
- @pgroth:+1
- 16:37:00 [tlebo]
- q+ to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
- 16:37:01 [ERICstephan]
- jcheney: making deliverable in tracker, that it makes a separate deliverable in working group? Paulg no
- 16:37:05 [pgroth]
- ack jcheney
- 16:37:12 [pgroth]
- ack tlebo
- 16:37:13 [Zakim]
- tlebo, you wanted to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
- 16:37:22 [satya]
- @Tim: I agree
- 16:37:37 [ERICstephan]
- tlebo: useful and at least interesting to PROV-O html doc
- 16:37:38 [dgarijo]
- +1 to Tim's point.
- 16:37:55 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:38:02 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:38:07 [Zakim]
- -pgroth
- 16:38:07 [dgarijo]
- If it helped us, it could help other people too...
- 16:38:12 [pgroth]
- ack I hung up
- 16:38:21 [ERICstephan]
- luc: we can close action-56?
- 16:38:29 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller.aa]
- 16:38:37 [ERICstephan]
- jcheney: +1
- 16:38:56 [ERICstephan]
- satya: action on me is closed?
- 16:39:05 [pgroth]
- Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
- 16:39:05 [Zakim]
- +pgroth; got it
- 16:39:10 [satya]
- ok
- 16:39:11 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: action is still open based on action-105
- 16:39:13 [satya]
- thanks!
- 16:39:17 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:39:28 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:39:57 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: okay on deliverable on RDF mappings?
- 16:40:03 [ERICstephan]
- who spoke?
- 16:40:09 [tlebo]
- macted did
- 16:40:20 [ERICstephan]
- MacTed: not sure this is going to meet the goals of harmonization
- 16:40:44 [tlebo]
- @macted, what are you looking for?
- 16:40:54 [Luc]
- created https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9
- 16:40:54 [satya]
- can you please explain macted?
- 16:41:02 [jcheney]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/HarmonizingProvDMAndProvO
- 16:41:04 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:41:14 [dgarijo]
- @satya: I think he is just concerned about the naming
- 16:41:17 [ERICstephan]
- satya: What are you suggesting macted?
- 16:41:18 [dgarijo]
- of the document..
- 16:41:45 [ERICstephan]
- MacTed: harmony does not equate to RDF mapping to me
- 16:42:08 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:42:41 [pgroth]
- Raise Issue against Product 9
- 16:42:41 [ERICstephan]
- luc: posting url to new product I created, to raise issues in the tracker between PROV-DM and PROV-O
- 16:43:03 [pgroth]
- Topic: Timetable for Release
- 16:43:42 [satya]
- @Luc, I just mailed you to close ISSUE-105
- 16:43:59 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: what should be the goal of the release?
- 16:44:12 [pgroth]
- q+
- 16:44:14 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:44:16 [pgroth]
- ack pgroth
- 16:44:53 [satya]
- q+
- 16:45:21 [Luc]
- q+
- 16:45:24 [pgroth]
- ack satya
- 16:45:38 [pgroth]
- ack Luc
- 16:45:42 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: sync one version of working draft against another for ( Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer)
- 16:45:54 [Zakim]
- -Helena
- 16:46:20 [ERICstephan]
- luc: the whole point was that we change the presentation, simplify, but we do not change any of the terms
- 16:46:31 [dgarijo]
- so then we are already done :D :D
- 16:46:46 [dgarijo]
- @satya: Account is now "bundle"
- 16:46:47 [ERICstephan]
- luc: if you have aligned the prov-o to the current working draft you have aligned them
- 16:47:14 [Luc]
- @Satya, i closed issue-105 and action-52
- 16:47:29 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: those set of issues need to be addressed before wd4
- 16:47:41 [ERICstephan]
- luc: wd4 March 1
- 16:48:07 [ERICstephan]
- luc: without sync with prov-o
- 16:49:16 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: when do we do a sync release within the group? reviews this week, two weeks for alignment, propose March 14?
- 16:49:18 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:50:00 [pgroth]
- Deadline to release internally to the WG for review of primer + dm + ontology sync release March 14
- 16:50:03 [Zakim]
- +Yolanda
- 16:50:32 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:50:48 [ERICstephan]
- luc: what does the prov-o team think?
- 16:50:56 [satya]
- yes, we now concentrate on html
- 16:51:03 [satya]
- document
- 16:51:39 [ERICstephan]
- satya: On our monday meeting we are already started restructuring HTML, maybe by next Thursday report progress?
- 16:51:56 [ERICstephan]
- satya: maybe 2 weeks time reasonable?
- 16:51:58 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:52:40 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: key comments, is raising all issues on the mapping styles and harmonization products, what is remaining to achieve harmonization?
- 16:52:54 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: I think we should aim for 14th
- 16:52:58 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:53:19 [ERICstephan]
- luc: concern that we are drifting again on the time table.
- 16:53:56 [ERICstephan]
- luc: We need to Start working on 5th working draft
- 16:54:31 [ERICstephan]
- luc: working in parallel on 5th working draft
- 16:55:12 [ERICstephan]
- luc: finalize timeline next week?
- 16:55:15 [pgroth]
- suggestion March 14, but finalize next week
- 16:55:21 [ERICstephan]
- +1 agree with luc
- 16:55:26 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:55:28 [tlebo]
- q+ did the content of http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF get moved to another page?
- 16:56:33 [pgroth]
- Topic: Agent Types
- 16:56:44 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: Tim it stays where its been
- 16:57:14 [tlebo]
- q-
- 16:57:17 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: agent typings discussion in the mail list
- 16:57:32 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: concerns about not broad enough use cases
- 16:57:37 [pgroth]
- ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0225.html
- 16:58:03 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: can we get concensus for a vote today?
- 16:58:08 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller.a]
- 16:58:31 [pgroth]
- Current: Person, Software Agent, Organization
- 16:58:50 [pgroth]
- Proposal: Change core agent subtypes to Human, System, Organization
- 16:58:55 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:59:00 [Curt]
- European (Organisation) or American (Organization) spelling?
- 16:59:18 [pgroth]
- q?
- 16:59:26 [satya]
- q+
- 16:59:26 [MacTed]
- +1 to change, with z spelling
- 16:59:32 [dgarijo]
- +1
- 16:59:51 [tlebo]
- -1 b/c organizations are systems
- 17:00:14 [Luc]
- @paul, wasn't it ComputingSystem ?
- 17:00:17 [dgarijo]
- @tim: but they are not all disjoint, right?
- 17:00:35 [Curt]
- +1 Systems can include persons or organizations, but are still distinct from them
- 17:00:37 [dgarijo]
- @tim: so an Organization CAN be a system.
- 17:01:01 [dgarijo]
- I'd say that Human and System are disjoint though.
- 17:01:21 [stephenc]
- Would prov:Human be a subclass of foaf:Person?
- 17:01:29 [zednik_]
- q+
- 17:01:34 [satya]
- q-
- 17:01:39 [pgroth]
- ack zednik
- 17:01:40 [ERICstephan]
- satya: when a human is not regarded in the context of an agent is there a problem?
- 17:01:44 [tlebo]
- abstain. Agent has been hard enough. I'll make my own subtypes.
- 17:01:56 [dgarijo]
- +q
- 17:02:15 [ERICstephan]
- zednik: Why human over person?
- 17:02:27 [pgroth]
- ack dgarijo
- 17:02:45 [ERICstephan]
- what if an animal is an agent?
- 17:03:09 [ERICstephan]
- agreed with tlebo
- 17:03:42 [pgroth]
- q?
- 17:03:42 [zednik_]
- q+
- 17:03:51 [pgroth]
- ack zednik_
- 17:03:52 [MacTed]
- thinking deeper.... foaf:Person <> prov:Person, which is clearer if we say prov:Human
- 17:04:10 [jun]
- do we have a use case to drive sub-typing agent? I am against over sub-typing
- 17:04:10 [MacTed]
- prov:Human may be but is not necessarily prov:Agent
- 17:04:46 [ERICstephan]
- zednik: talk about humans without typing them automatically to agent?
- 17:04:53 [jun]
- q+
- 17:05:00 [MacTed]
- prov:Agent might have *range* (as opposed to subClass) which includes foaf:Person, prov:Human, prov:Person...
- 17:05:02 [pgroth]
- ack jun
- 17:05:08 [tlebo]
- +1 to avoiding direct connection to FOAF.
- 17:05:12 [dgarijo]
- @why are you against? If prov is supposed to be a generic ontology, you will have to adapt it to you domain imo
- 17:05:22 [dgarijo]
- @jun
- 17:05:52 [ERICstephan]
- jun: what is driving this task?
- 17:06:12 [satya]
- @Jun, +1 - subytping leads to reduced interoperability
- 17:06:24 [Zakim]
- -Yolanda
- 17:06:25 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: We already agreed about these broad categories and wanted to get agreement on naming
- 17:06:47 [zednik_]
- is agent itself enough to address the use cases?
- 17:06:52 [ERICstephan]
- MacTed: What is the distinction?
- 17:07:17 [Luc]
- and originally software ...
- 17:07:24 [ERICstephan]
- MacTed: Human and Inhuman?
- 17:07:59 [jcheney]
- Suggest Nonhuman instead of Inhuman - a human can be inhuman.
- 17:08:10 [ERICstephan]
- link to use case?
- 17:08:13 [tlebo]
- is a foaf:Organization Human or InHuman?
- 17:08:27 [zednik_]
- what attributes are different for human vs nonhuman in prov?
- 17:08:47 [jun]
- @jcheney, +1. if we have to have it, then at least we have nonhuman
- 17:08:50 [zednik_]
- what relations are different for human vs nonhuman?
- 17:08:53 [satya]
- jcheney, tlebo :)
- 17:09:17 [MacTed]
- human vs nonhuman is fine with me ... once I understand why the distinction is necessary here...
- 17:09:21 [tlebo]
- we can kill -9 NonHuman without going to jail
- 17:09:38 [ERICstephan]
- lol tlebo
- 17:09:41 [pgroth]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0159.html
- 17:09:42 [MacTed]
- but corporations are people! ;-)
- 17:09:56 [ERICstephan]
- is a cow a system on a dairy farm?
- 17:10:56 [satya]
- I think this is one of our best discussion in the WG :o)
- 17:11:16 [zednik_]
- what is our definition of system?
- 17:11:22 [pgroth]
- +q
- 17:11:44 [pgroth]
- ack pgroth
- 17:11:59 [pgroth]
- q?
- 17:12:04 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: there is a key use case, it looks like there was naming, but we get on phone call and no consensus.
- 17:12:37 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: would like to issue this to be done. This is a necessary to have.
- 17:13:06 [ERICstephan]
- pgroth: Will email around again this use case.
- 17:13:30 [Zakim]
- -Satya_Sahoo
- 17:13:31 [tlebo]
- bye bye!
- 17:13:32 [Zakim]
- -tlebo
- 17:13:33 [Zakim]
- -jun
- 17:13:33 [Zakim]
- -??P38
- 17:13:34 [zednik_]
- bye
- 17:13:35 [Zakim]
- -jcheney
- 17:13:36 [Zakim]
- -pgroth
- 17:13:36 [Zakim]
- -dgarijo?
- 17:13:39 [Zakim]
- -MacTed
- 17:13:40 [Zakim]
- -Curt_Tilmes
- 17:13:40 [Zakim]
- -SamCoppens
- 17:13:42 [Zakim]
- -Luc
- 17:13:42 [ERICstephan]
- bye
- 17:13:46 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 17:13:48 [Zakim]
- - +1.509.967.aaaa
- 17:13:51 [Zakim]
- -??P51
- 17:15:05 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, set log public
- 17:15:11 [pgroth]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 17:15:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-minutes.html pgroth
- 17:15:16 [pgroth]
- trackbot, end telecon
- 17:15:16 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 17:15:16 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.509.967.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, SamCoppens, Helena, tlebo, dgarijo?, MacTed, Yolanda, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller]
- 17:15:24 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 17:15:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-minutes.html trackbot
- 17:15:25 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:15:25 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items