<trackbot> Date: 08 March 2012

<pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier

Admin

<pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01

<Curt> +1

+1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Mike> +1

<tlebo> +1

<GK> +1

<satya> +1

<pgroth> Accepted Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-01

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

k action can be closed

<GK> @paul I guess we'll talk about updating PROV-AQ - I've been focusing my limited efforts this week on reviewing DM updates

daniel's action can be closed

F2F3

<GK> Mar !!???? I have Mar 15 and 22

<pgroth> Please fill poll https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f3/

<pgroth> June 22 - 23

pgroth: co-locate with IPAW. should be in US anyways

Prov-o

<GK> That meeting date is Friday and saturday, right?

<pgroth> yes

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08#PROV-O

<dgarijo> Sorry to be late. Yes, I've finished my aciton, along with Tim and Mike.

tlebo: owl: processing issues, created new product just for HTML in the tracker
... changes occurred to OWL onto over the week. free to review
... changes to OWL have corresp. changes to the RDF pages
... new comparisons to the coverage overview page available
... HTML side: new product in tracker. Jun + Khalid presented a proposal for new doc structure
... well received during the monday call.
... journalism example shown, sketch of diagram
... onto visualization tool to help Khalid and Jun (Daniel?)
... new page creation mechanism available
... getting ready to review next iteration
... will then assign specific sections of the doc

pgroth: plan for deciding which automated gen tool to use?

tlebo: will emerge from discussion of next iteration

<Zakim> Luc, you wanted to ask about html generation tool

<dgarijo> I think that LODE was the most successful

Luc: how about printing requirement

tlebo: will be taken into account

<GK> (Doesn't mean one can't also have a browsable form :)

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that we need to ensure that we follow the w3c rec format

<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

pgroth: SW coord meeting says any format we use must be compatible with the W3C prescribed style guide

tlebo: ok so far, on the todo list for the future
... simplification & alignment: propose to flatten part of the Involvement hierarchy
... proposal sent out on Tue. Khalid responded. Will be implemented shortly

<dgarijo> I don't object as long as we have the hierarchy on the properties.

pgroth: date for automated version?

tlebo: aggregation of all threads under review by Monday

<dgarijo> @tlebo: if you need some additional help, please tell me.

tlebo: results on next iteration to be available by Tue or Wed

prov-dm

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/274

Luc: all comments grouped last week (Luc and Paolo) as ISSUE-274
... most resolved, rest noted in the current doc
... WD4 work to be frozen so that next set of tech issues can be tackled
... important for PROV-o and other "serialisers" to have a frozen PROV-DM
... feedback solicited

<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.

<GK> (Just sent comments to list)

Luc: no response from Tim, but know he's been looking into WD4 for PROV-O. ok to move on?

tlebo: sec. II and III missed so far, but will go with group's decision to Freeze

GK: current comments sent to list supersede previous ones

pgroth: happy to freeze, but does that entail updating the RDF if any signatures have changed?

tlebo: discrepancies are automatically detected -- thanks to changes in the PROV-DM markup

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html

Luc: WD4 text on derivation is still the same as WD3. but needs simplification. Link above is a proposal
... reviewed by Simon and others. Recent comments from GK and Curt taken into account

<GK> New text is big improvement. I still have some issues with content but happy to see new text as basis of ongoing comments.

Luc: seeking WG approval to incorporate into the editor's draft. and should it go into WD4 or WD5

GK: still some issues, but big improvement. can go forward for discussion

Curt: agree that changes look good. some workflows may have requirements that match the current proposal

Luc: where is this explained? DM part I or primer? seeking advice

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think there's scope for simplifying here

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

GK: the entity-entity derivation can be accomplished by introducing an activity.

<pgroth> we have time :-)

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

GK: not sure -- to be discussed further

Curt: can't role be used

<Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if WD4 vs WD5 is on the table for derivation's definition

Luc: roles in this case superseded by instances of usage/gen -- so need to be able to refer to those

tlebo: should new defs go in WD4 or WD5

pgroth: suggest WD4 as it simplifies work on PROV-O, gives it only one derivation to work with

tlebo: agree

<stainPhone> @tlebo +1

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if "usage" and "generation" are events? (happy to discuss in email if we're moving on)

GK: please continue discussion on the list. still some confusion

<Luc> To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)

<Luc> PROPOSED: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)

<stainPhone> yes, how cam tou talk anput usage without the using activity?

<stainPhone> +1

<Curt> +1

<GK> +1

+1

<tlebo> +1

<satya> +1

<Mike> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<smiles> +1

<jcheney> +1

<pgroth> Accepted: To incorporate the proposal on derivation in the current editor's draft (WD4)

<GK> I think freezing an editors draft is editor's call

Luc: incorporate proposal for derivation in WD4, then freeze WD4. fixed URL for internal use only

<stainPhone> so wd4 will not be published? or later w/provo wd2 etc?

<Curt> PROV-N

Luc: can we find a name for the ASN?

<Curt> ISSUE 273

<stainPhone> something non-abstract! ;)

<stainPhone> PROV-N +1

<Curt> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/273

<tlebo> PROV-N +1

proposals so far: PROV-N and "functional notation"

<zednik> PROV-N +1

<GK> I'm OK with PROV-N. "functional notation" by analogy with OWL

<pgroth> PROV-0, PROV-DM, PROV-AQ, PROV-Primer

PROV-N +1

<pgroth> PROV-N

<GK> (But I'd prefer it as an appendix in part 1)

<dgarijo> PROV-N +1

<SamCoppens> PROV-N +1

<GK> +0.5 (don't care too much)

yep I just voted :-)

<Curt> PROV-N +1

<satya> +1

<pgroth> Consensus, to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4

<GK> I think most important thing is to update references in the text

<pgroth> Accepted: to change PROV-ASN to PROV-N in WD4

<pgroth> ace paolo

<jun> I'll have to leave

<GK> Agree: discuss for understanding

<Paolo_> (back)

<GK> GK: why is not being able to infer activity an issue in derivation?

<GK> Luc: (a) reproducibility

<GK> (b) analysis of traces

<Paolo_> Luc: issue with analysis with provenance traces

<Paolo_> (I can resume GK, thanks)

<Paolo_> Luc: type of activity important for reproducibility and analysis

<Paolo_> Luc: details about input bindings into a procedure are only known from the usage records associated with the derivation

<stainPhone> but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?

<Paolo_> Luc: practical POV: a given activity may use same entity multiple times, with different roles

<stainPhone> or is (equivalent of) inprecise-n out now?

<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

<satya> @GK, agree - derivation is not for incorporating activity information

<Paolo_> GK: explicit activity expression already allowed this. This E-E derivation useful when that's not available?

<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?

<khalidbelhajjame> Usage + Generation does not always allow inferring Derivation

<Paolo_> Luc: activities are not just function calls, entities can be consumed at any time -- usage does not imply derivation

<GK> Ah: usage + generation !=> derivation - forgot that.

<Paolo_> satya: why should usage/generation/roles be brought into a derivation record?

<Paolo_> satya: we are not trying to make inferences using derivation

<GK> Stian not hearing you

<khalidbelhajjame> We didn't hear you Stian

<Paolo_> stian: (hard to hear)

<stainPhone> ok

<khalidbelhajjame> Still breaking Stian

<tlebo> is it this: but it is OK for a to be derived from b, generated by x, without x using b, right?

<stainPhone> ill type, go ahead

<Paolo_> (I missed it)

<stainPhone> tlebo, right

<Paolo_> Luc: @stian example is correct

<Curt> You could even have e2 derived from e1 in two different ways (two usage roles, if you will) within the same activity

<Paolo_> Khalid: essentially used imprecise_n derivation

<stainPhone> that makes srnse. but then you cant refer to those usages and generations?

<Paolo_> GK: is there a use case that requires this form of derivation? possibly can be rephrased in terms of the simpler use

<Paolo_> Luc: proposal does not involve embedding a generation / usage record into the derivation. just a reference to those records

<tlebo> @gk, I share your "orthogonalizatiaon" interest, but I view the current definition as a nice way of unifying the (otherwise isoloated) constructs.

<pgroth> divison

<Paolo_> Luc: will put an example in the repo for discussion

<GK> (I would like to see a use-case that *requires* the complex form of derivation.)

<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

<GK> OK, if it's useful, then maybe it can be descrtibed as a syntactic sugaring?

<Paolo_> pgroth: possibly more than syntactic sugar?

<satya> @Stian: yes agree

<GK> Thanks for letting us air the topic.

<Paolo_> GK: hopefully the example will reveal that

<stainPhone> imagine used(bZip,x) wasGenBy(bZip, y) used(b,y)

<pgroth> trackbot, end telecon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: paolo
Found Scribe: Paolo Missier
Default Present: [IPcaller], Luc, +1.443.212.aaaa, Curt_Tilmes, GK, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, sandro, Satya_Sahoo, jun, jcheney, dgarijo, pgroth, +329331aacc, Paolo_
Present: [IPcaller] Luc +1.443.212.aaaa Curt_Tilmes GK +1.315.330.aabb tlebo khalidbelhajjame sandro Satya_Sahoo jun jcheney dgarijo pgroth +329331aacc Paolo_
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.08
Found Date: 08 Mar 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.