IRC log of prov on 2012-05-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:50:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:36 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:50:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:37 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:37 [trackbot]
Date: 17 May 2012
14:50:37 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:50:37 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:46 [Luc]
14:51:36 [Luc]
Chair: Moreau
14:51:44 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:51:49 [Luc]
zakim, who is here?
14:51:49 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
14:51:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:52:03 [Luc]
Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies
14:52:17 [Luc]
Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies, Paolo Missier
14:57:34 [Paolo_]
Paolo_ has joined #prov
14:57:54 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
14:58:01 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:08 [Zakim]
14:59:01 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
14:59:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aaaa
14:59:13 [Zakim]
14:59:19 [tlebo]
zakim, I am aaaa
14:59:19 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
14:59:54 [Zakim]
15:00:13 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:00:20 [Zakim]
15:00:21 [Luc]
Scribe: simon miles
15:00:30 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21
15:01:04 [Luc]
topic: admin
15:01:31 [Zakim]
15:01:46 [Zakim]
15:01:56 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:01:58 [MacTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:01:59 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:00 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:02:06 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:02:51 [Luc]
proposed: to accept minute of last week's teleconference
15:03:06 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:19 [Luc]
15:03:20 [tlebo]
15:03:21 [Curt]
0 (not present)
15:03:23 [smiles]
15:03:26 [MacTed]
15:03:38 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:54 [Luc]
resolved: minutes of last week's teleconference
15:03:54 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:03:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:04:09 [Luc]
15:04:10 [smiles]
Luc: Action review
15:04:20 [GK1]
oops, sorry, still getting audio together
15:04:30 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:04:40 [smiles]
Luc: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list
15:04:49 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:04:54 [tlebo]
I just sent my review
15:05:02 [smiles]
Luc: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later
15:05:05 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:05:14 [Luc]
Topic: PAQ release
15:05:41 [smiles]
15:05:41 [Zakim]
15:05:44 [Luc]
15:05:59 [GK]
zakim, ??P49 is me
15:06:01 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:06:01 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:06:03 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:06:08 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:06:11 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:06:17 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:06:29 [Zakim]
15:06:31 [Zakim]
15:06:38 [jun]
zakim, ?P44 is me
15:06:40 [Zakim]
sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'
15:06:42 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:06:49 [jun]
zakim, ??P44 is me
15:06:51 [smiles]
GK: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet
15:07:05 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:07:09 [smiles]
GK: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge
15:07:17 [smiles]
Luc: Please agree release date soon
15:07:22 [Luc]
topic: other documents
15:07:37 [Zakim]
15:07:37 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:07:43 [Zakim]
15:07:48 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P51 is me
15:07:49 [Zakim]
15:08:02 [smiles]
Luc: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues
15:08:26 [Zakim]
15:08:32 [smiles]
... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim
15:08:36 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:08:39 [GK]
Issue 88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned
15:08:44 [Zakim]
15:08:57 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:08:57 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:08:57 [smiles]
... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation
15:09:04 [smiles]
... soon ready for review
15:09:18 [GK]
Just closed issue 88
15:09:21 [smiles]
... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?
15:09:25 [smiles]
jcheney: confirms
15:09:35 [Luc]
@graham, thanks
15:09:57 [smiles]
tlebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing
15:10:25 [smiles]
... added cross-references for terms within HTML document
15:10:34 [smiles]
... latest draft linked on agenda
15:10:42 [smiles]
... feedback on the cross-references welcome
15:10:48 [Luc]
15:10:50 [smiles]
... on track for release June 1
15:11:13 [Luc]
15:11:22 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:11:25 [smiles]
smiles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week
15:11:28 [Luc]
topic: collections organization
15:11:29 [Zakim]
15:11:31 [smiles]
Luc: any comments on progress?
15:11:55 [smiles]
Topic: restructuring documents for collections
15:12:21 [smiles]
Luc: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are
15:12:39 [smiles]
... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document
15:12:54 [smiles]
... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM
15:13:10 [smiles]
... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring
15:13:21 [Luc]
15:14:13 [smiles]
GK: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes
15:14:57 [smiles]
... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea
15:15:51 [Zakim]
15:15:54 [smiles]
... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things
15:17:03 [smiles]
... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns
15:17:42 [MacTed]
apropos of GK's "core" patterns... this came to my eyes today --
15:17:43 [smiles]
... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability
15:18:15 [smiles]
... Core: entity, activity, agent
15:18:45 [smiles]
Luc: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?
15:18:48 [smiles]
GK: Yes
15:18:51 [Luc]
15:19:08 [Luc]
15:19:15 [Luc]
just on irc? paolo?
15:20:02 [tlebo]
15:20:13 [smiles]
tlebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo
15:20:57 [smiles]
... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document
15:21:03 [smiles]
... aim to simplify PROV-O
15:21:06 [Paolo]
sorry guys text only,
15:21:10 [Paolo]
and very unstable
15:21:37 [smiles]
... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing
15:21:40 [Paolo]
thanks smiles for minuting
15:21:44 [tlebo]
I can fitĀ into 1.25 screens. takes up 4 screens. takes up 1.5 screens
15:21:48 [Luc]
@paolo, it's ok, tim filling in
15:22:31 [smiles]
... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections
15:22:35 [Paolo]
yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise
15:22:57 [smiles]
... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document
15:23:16 [Paolo]
we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want
15:23:30 [smiles]
Luc: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document
15:24:08 [smiles]
... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions
15:24:36 [smiles]
... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O
15:25:17 [smiles]
... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?
15:25:20 [smiles]
tlebo: Yes
15:25:28 [tlebo]
(and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)
15:25:41 [Luc]
15:25:56 [smiles]
Luc: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal
15:26:04 [tlebo]
15:26:55 [smiles]
tlebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts
15:27:06 [smiles]
... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)
15:28:24 [smiles]
tlebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?
15:28:36 [Curt]
15:28:46 [smiles]
GK: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way
15:28:51 [Luc]
ack tlebo
15:28:52 [tlebo]
15:29:30 [smiles]
Luc: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document
15:29:40 [smiles]
... but had reviews critical of this separation
15:29:57 [smiles]
... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension
15:30:23 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:30:32 [smiles]
... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties
15:31:01 [smiles]
... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful
15:31:18 [smiles]
... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document
15:31:44 [smiles]
... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents
15:32:11 [smiles]
... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model
15:32:17 [MacTed]
what is background of these outside readers? philosophers, scientists, programmers, other? experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...
15:33:00 [smiles]
... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM
15:33:47 [smiles]
... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes
15:34:01 [smiles]
... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)
15:34:53 [smiles]
... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage
15:35:40 [Luc]
15:35:43 [satya]
15:36:36 [smiles]
satya: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?
15:36:44 [MacTed]
15:36:48 [satya]
15:37:00 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:37:00 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:37:01 [smiles]
Luc: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped
15:37:44 [smiles]
MacTed: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience
15:37:59 [smiles]
... in favour of GK's restructuring
15:38:24 [smiles]
... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements
15:38:51 [smiles]
... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those
15:39:26 [tlebo]
perhaps if we organized by components?
15:39:26 [Luc]
15:39:30 [Luc]
ack mact
15:39:56 [smiles]
... root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:25 [smiles]
Luc: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:28 [Luc]
15:40:37 [GK]
q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments
15:41:43 [smiles]
GK: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose
15:42:31 [smiles]
... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear
15:43:19 [tlebo]
q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?
15:43:23 [smiles]
... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are
15:43:34 [smiles]
... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns
15:43:45 [jcheney]
q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:44:32 [smiles]
... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite
15:44:39 [smiles]
... of what is intended
15:44:40 [tlebo]
@jcheny, I'll yield :-)
15:45:14 [smiles]
... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed
15:45:22 [Luc]
15:45:22 [tlebo]
15:45:30 [GK]
15:45:46 [Luc]
ack jcheney
15:45:46 [Zakim]
jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:45:56 [Luc]
topic: constraints document
15:46:08 [tlebo]
go ahead, graham.
15:46:28 [jcheney]
high-level impression is fine
15:46:41 [smiles]
GK: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach
15:46:54 [smiles]
... definitions and inferences presented crisply
15:47:10 [smiles]
... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good
15:47:35 [smiles]
tlebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content
15:47:48 [tlebo]
15:47:50 [smiles]
... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go
15:48:20 [smiles]
... minor detailed comments sent (above)
15:49:17 [smiles]
jcheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail
15:49:27 [smiles]
... good to know happy with direction
15:49:59 [GK]
I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM
15:50:06 [tlebo]
@jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)
15:50:16 [smiles]
... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email
15:51:16 [tlebo]
@jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.
15:51:27 [smiles]
... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed
15:51:30 [Luc]
15:52:05 [Luc]
Topic: Responsibility
15:52:18 [Luc]
15:53:01 [smiles]
tlebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed
15:53:34 [jcheney]
I may have suggested "delegation" at some point
15:54:03 [smiles]
... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email
15:54:16 [satya]
is there an issue raised for responsibility?
15:54:37 [Luc]
topic: bundles
15:54:46 [Luc]
15:55:03 [smiles]
Luc: Circulated text addressing issues raised