IRC log of prov on 2012-03-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:47 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:56:47 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-irc
15:56:49 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:49 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #prov
15:56:51 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be
15:56:52 [trackbot]: Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:56:52 [trackbot]: Date: 08 March 2012
15:56:53 [pgroth]: Zakim, this will be PROV
15:56:53 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:56:56 [Zakim]: ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:57:05 [pgroth]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08
15:57:11 [pgroth]: Chair: Paul Groth
15:57:25 [Mike]: Mike has joined #prov
15:57:27 [pgroth]: Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:57:33 [pgroth]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:51 [Zakim]: + +1.443.212.aaaa
15:58:16 [Curt]: Curt has joined #prov
15:58:31 [paolo]: paolo has joined #prov
15:59:33 [GK]: GK has joined #prov
16:00:13 [Zakim]: +??P9
16:00:34 [khalidbelhajjame]: khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:00:40 [Zakim]: +Curt_Tilmes
16:00:52 [Zakim]: +??P26
16:01:07 [GK]: Zakim, ??p26 is me
16:01:07 [Zakim]: +GK; got it
16:01:13 [tlebo]: tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:22 [Zakim]: + +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:31 [tlebo]: zakim, I am aabb
16:01:31 [Zakim]: +tlebo; got it
16:01:41 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
16:02:00 [satya]: satya has joined #prov
16:02:07 [khalidbelhajjame]: zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:02:20 [Zakim]: +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:26 [Zakim]: +sandro
16:02:54 [jun]: jun has joined #prov
16:03:18 [stephenc]: stephenc has joined #prov
16:03:19 [pgroth]: topic: Admin
16:03:29 [pgroth]: Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
16:03:42 [Curt]: +1
16:03:43 [paolo]: +1
16:03:44 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
16:03:48 [Mike]: +1
16:03:49 [tlebo]: +1
16:03:50 [GK]: +1
16:03:55 [Zakim]: +Satya_Sahoo
16:04:10 [Zakim]: +??P27
16:04:17 [satya]: +1
16:04:22 [jun]: zakim, ??P27 is me
16:04:22 [Zakim]: +jun; got it
16:04:39 [pgroth]: Accepted Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01
16:04:46 [pgroth]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:04:46 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun
16:04:56 [pgroth]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:05:27 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
16:05:36 [jcheney]: jcheney has joined #prov
16:05:42 [Zakim]: +??P34
16:05:50 [jcheney]: zakim, ??p34 is me
16:05:50 [Zakim]: +jcheney; got it
16:05:53 [paolo]: k action can be closed
16:06:06 [GK]: @paul I guess we'll talk about updating PROV-AQ - I've been focusing my limited efforts this week on reviewing DM updates
16:06:13 [paolo]: daniel's action can be closed
16:06:28 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.aa]
16:06:39 [christine]: christine has joined #prov
16:06:47 [SamCoppens]: SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:06:55 [smiles]: smiles has joined #prov
16:07:28 [pgroth]: topic: F2F3
16:07:29 [GK]: Mar !!???? I have Mar 15 and 22
16:08:09 [pgroth]: Please fill poll https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f3/
16:08:14 [pgroth]: June 22 - 23
16:08:16 [paolo]: pgroth: co-locate with IPAW. should be in US anyways
16:08:26 [Zakim]: +??P14
16:08:53 [pgroth]: q?
16:09:03 [dgarijo]: Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:09:03 [Zakim]: +dgarijo; got it
16:09:08 [pgroth]: q?
16:09:16 [pgroth]: topic: Prov-o
16:09:20 [GK]: That meeting date is Friday and saturday, right?
16:09:24 [pgroth]: yes
16:09:24 [tlebo]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08#PROV-O
16:09:44 [pgroth]: Zakim, who is on the call?
16:09:44 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P21, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, ??P9, Curt_Tilmes, GK, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller.a], jcheney, [IPcaller.aa], dgarijo
16:09:48 [dgarijo]: Sorry to be late. Yes, I've finished my aciton, along with Tim and Mike.
16:09:51 [pgroth]: Zakim, ??P21 is me
16:09:51 [Zakim]: +pgroth; got it
16:09:59 [paolo]: tlebo: owl: processing issues, created new product just for HTML in the tracker
16:10:28 [paolo]: tlebo: changes occurred to OWL onto over the week. free to review
16:10:43 [paolo]: tlebo: changes to OWL have corresp. changes to the RDF pages
16:10:59 [paolo]: tlebo: new comparisons to the coverage overview page available
16:11:23 [paolo]: tlebo: HTML side: new product in tracker. Jun + Khalid presented a proposal for new doc structure
16:11:35 [pgroth]: q?
16:11:38 [paolo]: tlebo: well received during the monday call.
16:11:54 [paolo]: tlebo: journalism example shown, sketch of diagram
16:12:15 [paolo]: tlebo: onto visualization tool to help Khalid and Jun (Daniel?)
16:12:28 [paolo]: tlebo: new page creation mechanism available
16:12:39 [paolo]: tlebo: getting ready to review next iteration
16:12:53 [pgroth]: q?
16:12:55 [paolo]: tlebo: will then assign specific sections of the doc
16:13:11 [Luc]: q+ to ask about html generation tool
16:13:17 [paolo]: pgroth: plan for deciding which automated gen tool to use?
16:13:23 [pgroth]: q?
16:13:26 [Zakim]: + +329331aacc
16:13:29 [paolo]: tlebo: will emerge from discussion of next iteration
16:13:38 [pgroth]: ack Luc
16:13:39 [Zakim]: Luc, you wanted to ask about html generation tool
16:13:45 [dgarijo]: I think that LODE was the most successful
16:14:19 [paolo]: Luc: how about printing requirement
16:14:20 [pgroth]: q+ to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:14:28 [paolo]: tlebo: will be taken into account
16:14:38 [GK]: (Doesn't mean one can't also have a browsable form :)
16:15:00 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:15:00 [Zakim]: pgroth, you wanted to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format
16:15:10 [dgarijo]: You can browse the different tools at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Generating_HTML_documentation_of_OWL#PROV-O_Views_in_the_previous_tools
16:15:15 [paolo]: pgroth: SW coord meeting says any format we use must be compatible with the W3C prescribed style guide
16:15:26 [pgroth]: q?
16:15:33 [paolo]: tlebo: ok so far, on the todo list for the future
16:16:15 [paolo]: tlebo: simplification & alignment: propose to flatten part of the Involvement hierarchy
16:16:45 [paolo]: tlebo: proposal sent out on Tue. Khalid responded. Will be implemented shortly
16:16:50 [pgroth]: q?
16:16:58 [dgarijo]: I don't object as long as we have the hierarchy on the properties.
16:17:26 [paolo]: pgroth: date for automated version?
16:17:43 [paolo]: tlebo: aggregation of all threads under review by Monday
16:17:44 [pgroth]: q?
16:17:58 [dgarijo]: @tlebo: if you need some additional help, please tell me.
16:18:11 [pgroth]: q?
16:18:17 [paolo]: tlebo: results on next iteration to be available by Tue or Wed
16:18:22 [pgroth]: topic: prov-dm
16:18:33 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/274
16:19:10 [paolo]: Luc: all comments grouped last week (Luc and Paolo) as ISSUE-274
16:19:23 [paolo]: Luc: most resolved, rest noted in the current doc
16:19:50 [paolo]: Luc: WD4 work to be frozen so that next set of tech issues can be tackled
16:19:55 [Zakim]: +??P64
16:20:16 [paolo]: Luc: important for PROV-o and other "serialisers" to have a frozen PROV-DM
16:20:25 [Luc]: q?
16:20:25 [paolo]: Luc: feedback solicited
16:20:31 [zednik]: zednik has joined #prov
16:21:05 [GK]: I reviewed DM4 today (up to about middle of section 4); much improved over previous but still some issues - happy to see these considered for DM5.
16:21:19 [GK]: (Just sent comments to list)
16:21:21 [paolo]: Luc: no response from Tim, but know he's been looking into WD4 for PROV-O. ok to move on?
16:21:41 [pgroth]: q?
16:21:45 [paolo]: tlebo: sec. II and III missed so far, but will go with group's decision to Freeze
16:22:32 [pgroth]: q?
16:22:33 [paolo]: GK: current comments sent to list supersede previous ones
16:22:35 [pgroth]: q+
16:23:19 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:23:28 [paolo]: pgroth: happy to freeze, but does that entail updating the RDF if any signatures have changed?
16:24:37 [paolo]: tlebo: discrepancies are automatically detected -- thanks to changes in the PROV-DM markup
16:25:04 [Luc]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
16:25:39 [paolo]: Luc: WD4 text on derivation is still the same as WD3. but needs simplification. Link above is a proposal
16:25:43 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:26:16 [paolo]: Luc: reviewed by Simon and others. Recent comments from GK and Curt taken into account
16:26:19 [GK]: New text is big improvement. I still have some issues with content but happy to see new text as basis of ongoing comments.
16:26:50 [paolo]: Luc: seeking WG approval to incorporate into the editor's draft. and should it go into WD4 or WD5
16:26:51 [pgroth]: q?
16:27:02 [stainPhone]: stainPhone has joined #prov
16:27:22 [paolo]: GK: still some issues, but big improvement. can go forward for discussion
16:27:32 [MacTed]: MacTed has joined #prov
16:28:20 [paolo]: Curt: agree that changes look good. some workflows may have requirements that match the current proposal
16:28:42 [paolo]: Luc: where is this explained? DM part I or primer? seeking advice
16:28:46 [GK]: q+ to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:17 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:29:17 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to say I think there's scope for simplifying here
16:29:25 [paolo]: Curt: suggest to use derivation simply, not tied into the roles and not tied back to gen/usage. These details may not go in part I
16:29:49 [Luc]: q+
16:30:01 [pgroth]: ack Luc
16:30:11 [paolo]: GK: the entity-entity derivation can be accomplished by introducing an activity.
16:30:45 [pgroth]: q?
16:30:56 [pgroth]: we have time :-)
16:31:00 [paolo]: Luc: but activities may be unknown, and also may not be known how "source" entities contributed, so a link into the derivation record is needed
16:31:01 [Curt]: q+ could attributes be used to tie that?
16:31:02 [tlebo]: q+
16:31:12 [pgroth]: q?
16:31:15 [paolo]: GK: not sure -- to be discussed further
16:31:26 [tlebo]: q-
16:31:41 [tlebo]: q+ to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:31:53 [pgroth]: q+
16:31:55 [paolo]: Curt: can't role be used
16:32:13 [pgroth]: ack tlebo
16:32:13 [Zakim]: tlebo, you wanted to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition
16:32:20 [paolo]: Luc: roles in this case superseded by instances of usage/gen -- so need to be able to refer to those
16:32:39 [paolo]: tlebo: should new defs go in WD4 or WD5
16:32:54 [GK]: q+ to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events? (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:33:06 [paolo]: pgroth: suggest WD4 as it simplifies work on PROV-O, gives it only one derivation to work with
16:33:19 [pgroth]: q?
16:33:23 [paolo]: tlebo: agree
16:33:29 [tlebo]: q-
16:33:33 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:33:50 [stainPhone]: @tlebo +1
16:34:02 [pgroth]: q?
16:34:10 [pgroth]: q?
16:34:24 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:34:24 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events? (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)
16:34:25 [paolo]: GK: please continue discussion on the list. still some confusion
16:34:27 [Luc]: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 [Luc]: PROPOSED: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:34:36 [stainPhone]: yes, how cam tou talk anput usage without the using activity?
16:34:51 [stainPhone]: +1
16:34:52 [Curt]: +1
16:34:53 [GK]: +1
16:34:53 [paolo]: +1
16:34:55 [tlebo]: +1
16:34:57 [satya]: +1
16:34:57 [Mike]: +1
16:34:57 [dgarijo]: +1
16:34:58 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
16:34:58 [SamCoppens]: +1
16:34:58 [smiles]: +1
16:35:03 [jcheney]: +1
16:35:11 [pgroth]: Accepted: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)
16:35:39 [GK]: I think freezing an editors draft is editor's call
16:36:03 [paolo]: Luc: incorporate proposal for derivation in WD4, then freeze WD4. fixed URL for internal use only
16:36:06 [pgroth]: q?
16:36:36 [Luc]: q+
16:36:37 [paolo]: q+
16:36:49 [stainPhone]: so wd4 will not be published? or later w/provo wd2 etc?
16:36:53 [Curt]: PROV-N
16:36:55 [paolo]: Luc: can we find a name for the ASN?
16:36:56 [Curt]: ISSUE 273
16:37:13 [pgroth]: q?
16:37:14 [stainPhone]: something non-abstract! ;)
16:37:20 [pgroth]: ack Luc
16:37:43 [paolo]: q-
16:37:57 [stainPhone]: PROV-N +1
16:37:58 [Curt]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/273
16:38:03 [tlebo]: PROV-N +1
16:38:04 [paolo]: proposals so far: PROV-N and "functional notation"
16:38:11 [zednik]: PROV-N +1
16:38:13 [GK]: I'm OK with PROV-N. "functional notation" by analogy with OWL
16:38:21 [pgroth]: PROV-0, PROV-DM, PROV-AQ, PROV-Primer
16:38:25 [paolo]: PROV-N +1
16:38:43 [pgroth]: PROV-N
16:38:43 [GK]: (But I'd prefer it as an appendix in part 1)
16:38:50 [dgarijo]: PROV-N +1
16:39:08 [SamCoppens]: PROV-N +1
16:39:12 [GK]: +0.5 (don't care too much)
16:39:13 [paolo]: yep I just voted :-)
16:39:14 [Curt]: PROV-N +1
16:39:20 [satya]: +1
16:39:33 [pgroth]: Consensus, to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:47 [GK]: I think most important thing is to update references in the text
16:39:48 [pgroth]: Accepted: to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4
16:39:57 [paolo]: q+
16:40:07 [pgroth]: ace paolo
16:40:10 [pgroth]: ack paolo
16:40:11 [GK]: q+
16:40:14 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:40:49 [jun]: I'll have to leave
16:41:20 [GK]: Agree: discuss for understanding
16:41:29 [Zakim]: -jun
16:41:32 [Zakim]: +??P5
16:41:46 [Zakim]: - +1.443.212.aaaa
16:41:48 [Paolo_]: Paolo_ has joined #prov
16:41:52 [Paolo_]: (back)
16:42:18 [GK]: GK: why is not being able to infer activity an issue in derivation?
16:42:27 [GK]: Luc: (a) reproducibility
16:42:33 [GK]: (b) analysis of traces
16:42:37 [Paolo_]: Luc: issue with analysis with provenance traces
16:42:43 [Paolo_]: (I can resume GK, thanks)
16:43:02 [pgroth]: Zakim, who's load?
16:43:02 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:05 [Paolo_]: Luc: type of activity important for reproducibility and analysis
16:43:07 [Zakim]: -sandro
16:43:09 [pgroth]: Zakim, who's loud?
16:43:09 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:43:20 [tlebo]: zakim, who is making noise?
16:43:31 [Zakim]: tlebo, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:43:58 [Paolo_]: Luc: details about input bindings into a procedure are only known from the usage records associated with the derivation
16:44:15 [stainPhone]: but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?
16:44:52 [Paolo_]: Luc: practical POV: a given activity may use same entity multiple times, with different roles
16:45:24 [stainPhone]: or is (equivalent of) inprecise-n out now?
16:45:33 [Paolo_]: Luc: formal POV: in the context of OPM there is a need to kow which activity is associated with each derivation, roles allow for some completeness results
16:46:05 [satya]: @GK, agree - derivation is not for incorporating activity information
16:46:06 [satya]: q+
16:46:10 [pgroth]: q?
16:46:22 [Paolo_]: GK: explicit activity expression already allowed this. This E-E derivation useful when that's not available?
16:46:23 [GK]: I understand there;'s a need to express this information, but I thought it was possible through explicit activity/event expressions; entity-entity is for when less info is available?
16:46:58 [khalidbelhajjame]: Usage + Generation does not always allow inferring Derivation
16:47:07 [Paolo_]: Luc: activities are not just function calls, entities can be consumed at any time -- usage does not imply derivation
16:47:09 [pgroth]: q?
16:47:14 [pgroth]: ack satya
16:47:16 [stainPhone]: q+
16:47:28 [GK]: Ah: usage + generation !=> derivation - forgot that.
16:47:51 [Paolo_]: satya: why should usage/generation/roles be brought into a derivation record?
16:48:04 [Paolo_]: satya: we are not trying to make inferences using derivation
16:48:26 [GK]: Stian not hearing you
16:48:29 [khalidbelhajjame]: We didn't hear you Stian
16:48:51 [Paolo_]: stian: (hard to hear)
16:48:53 [stainPhone]: ok
16:48:57 [khalidbelhajjame]: Still breaking Stian
16:48:59 [tlebo]: is it this: but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?
16:49:01 [stainPhone]: ill type, go ahead
16:49:11 [Paolo_]: (I missed it)
16:49:11 [stainPhone]: tlebo, right
16:50:14 [Paolo_]: Luc: @stian example is correct
16:50:30 [Curt]: You could even have e2 derived from e1 in two different ways (two usage roles, if you will) within the same activity
16:50:32 [Paolo_]: Khalid: essentially used imprecise_n derivation
16:50:45 [stainPhone]: that makes srnse. but then you cant refer to those usages and generations?
16:50:59 [pgroth]: q+
16:51:05 [pgroth]: ack stainPhone
16:51:06 [Paolo_]: GK: is there a use case that requires this form of derivation? possibly can be rephrased in terms of the simpler use
16:51:25 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller.aaa]
16:51:38 [Paolo_]: Luc: proposal does not involve embedding a generation / usage record into the derivation. just a reference to those records
16:51:40 [tlebo]: @gk, I share your "orthogonalizatiaon" interest, but I view the current definition as a nice way of unifying the (otherwise isoloated) constructs.
16:51:58 [Zakim]: -??P5
16:52:14 [Zakim]: +??P3
16:52:18 [pgroth]: divison
16:52:30 [Paolo_]: zakim, ??P3 is me
16:52:30 [Zakim]: +Paolo_; got it
16:52:43 [Paolo_]: Luc: will put an example in the repo for discussion
16:52:44 [pgroth]: q?
16:52:46 [GK]: (I would like to see a use-case that *requires* the complex form of derivation.)
16:53:32 [stainPhone]: if wasDerivedFrom(a,b) wasGenBy(a,x) used(b,x) then you are not guarantee that a was derived through that usage of b
16:53:52 [pgroth]: q?
16:53:55 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:53:59 [GK]: OK, if it's useful, then maybe it can be descrtibed as a syntactic sugaring?
16:54:32 [Paolo_]: pgroth: possibly more than syntactic sugar?
16:54:36 [pgroth]: q?
16:54:39 [satya]: @Stian: yes agree
16:54:40 [GK]: Thanks for letting us air the topic.
16:54:41 [Paolo_]: GK: hopefully the example will reveal that
16:54:52 [Zakim]: -Satya_Sahoo
16:54:53 [Zakim]: -tlebo
16:54:54 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller.a]
16:54:55 [Zakim]: -Luc
16:54:56 [Zakim]: -dgarijo
16:54:56 [Zakim]: -khalidbelhajjame
16:54:57 [Zakim]: -Curt_Tilmes
16:54:58 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller.aa]
16:54:59 [Zakim]: -jcheney
16:55:01 [Zakim]: -GK
16:55:04 [Zakim]: -??P64
16:55:10 [Zakim]: - +329331aacc
16:55:11 [stainPhone]: imagine used(bZip,x) wasGenBy(bZip, y) used(b,y)
16:55:16 [Zakim]: -Paolo_
16:55:17 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
16:55:17 [Zakim]: -??P9
16:55:33 [pgroth]: rrsagent, set log public
16:55:38 [pgroth]: rrsagent, draft minutes
16:55:38 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:55:43 [pgroth]: trackbot, end telecon
16:55:43 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
16:55:43 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, Curt_Tilmes, GK, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, jcheney, dgarijo,
16:55:46 [Zakim]: ... pgroth, +329331aacc, Paolo_
16:55:51 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:55:51 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:55:52 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
16:55:52 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items