IRC log of prov on 2012-06-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:48:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:48:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc
14:48:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:48:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:48:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:48:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:48:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:48:40 [trackbot]
Date: 07 June 2012
14:48:44 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:48:44 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:02 [pgroth]
Agenda:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.06.07
14:49:13 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:17 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:49:35 [pgroth]
Regrets: Graham Klyne, Daniel Garijo
14:49:55 [pgroth]
I need a scribe
14:49:59 [pgroth]
anyone?
14:50:34 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:50:41 [Zakim]
+??P5
14:51:56 [pgroth]
scribe anyone?
14:54:31 [Zakim]
+TomDN
14:54:36 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
14:54:48 [pgroth]
tom can you scribe?
14:55:01 [TomDN]
noone signed up?
14:55:05 [TomDN]
sure
14:55:09 [pgroth]
no :-(
14:55:13 [pgroth]
thanks
14:55:23 [TomDN]
np :)
14:55:26 [pgroth]
Scribe: Tom De Nies
14:55:37 [TomDN]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P5, TomDN
14:55:47 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
14:55:47 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:57:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.661.382.aaaa
14:57:24 [Zakim]
+Luc
14:57:25 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
14:58:01 [Zakim]
-TomDN
14:58:01 [Luc]
@paul, we need to draft the f2f2 agenda
14:58:32 [pgroth]
@luc: yes. next week I'm "on vacation" visiting parents so will have time
14:58:48 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
14:58:58 [Zakim]
+TomDN
14:58:58 [Luc]
@paul: OK
14:59:07 [TomDN]
sorry, phone dropped off for a second there
14:59:44 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:59:49 [Zakim]
+Curt_Tilmes
14:59:52 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:33 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:37 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
15:00:46 [Zakim]
+tlebo
15:00:48 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.467.aabb
15:00:49 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:49 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:00:50 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:50 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:01:04 [SamCoppens]
zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
15:01:09 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
15:01:09 [TomDN]
Zakim, mute me
15:01:09 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
15:01:16 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+??P30
15:01:31 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:01:48 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:01:58 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P20 is me
15:01:58 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:02:08 [stain]
I'm in a meeting like GK and dgarijo, but I'll join when/if you come to collection
15:02:17 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
15:02:23 [stain]
and follow the hasProvenanceIn discussion on the chat
15:02:25 [pgroth]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-31
15:02:30 [KhalidBelhajjame]
KhalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:02:33 [pgroth]
proposed Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:02:38 [TomDN]
+1
15:02:42 [SamCoppens]
+1
15:02:44 [dgarijo]
+1
15:02:46 [Curt]
+1
15:02:48 [jcheney]
0 - missed it
15:03:02 [smiles]
+1
15:03:07 [Paolo]
0 -- missed it
15:03:11 [Zakim]
+??P39
15:03:27 [KhalidBelhajjame]
zakim, ??P39 is me
15:03:28 [Zakim]
+KhalidBelhajjame; got it
15:03:31 [pgroth]
approved: Minutes of the May 31 2012 Telecon
15:03:44 [Zakim]
+??P41
15:03:52 [CraigTrim]
CraigTrim has joined #prov
15:04:01 [pgroth]
sandro are you there?
15:04:07 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
15:04:09 [TomDN]
pgroth: we confirmed that sandro sent the announcement to the mailing lists, and Graham has reviewed the constraints document
15:04:12 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:04:32 [pgroth]
Topic: Definition of role
15:05:05 [TomDN]
pgroth: to summarize: we talked last week about expanding the definition of role
15:05:46 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:05:49 [TomDN]
... We tried to come to a revised definition during the week, that included both the object and subject of role
15:05:53 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:06:06 [Zakim]
+[GVoice]
15:06:24 [satya]
Zakim, GVoice is me
15:06:24 [Zakim]
+satya; got it
15:06:27 [TomDN]
... No apparent consensus was reached
15:06:37 [pgroth]
q?
15:06:37 [smiles]
q+
15:06:46 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:07:29 [TomDN]
smiles: In my email, I wasn't suggesting that we would drop 'role' and just have 'type'.
15:07:46 [pgroth]
q?
15:07:48 [TomDN]
... I would propose keeping what we had, I liked the definition of role
15:08:06 [TomDN]
pgroth: What do you think about expanding the domain of role?
15:08:38 [pgroth]
q?
15:08:41 [Luc]
q+
15:08:49 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:08:56 [Zakim]
+??P3
15:08:56 [TomDN]
smiles: I don't have a strong objection to it, but I'm not quite sure what it imply
15:09:07 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute ??p3
15:09:07 [Zakim]
??P3 should now be muted
15:09:50 [pgroth]
q?
15:09:57 [Luc]
q+
15:10:08 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:10:13 [TomDN]
Luc: Simon's suggestion seems good. We could keep the current definition and make sure all documents are compatible with it
15:10:15 [Zakim]
-Curt_Tilmes
15:10:42 [TomDN]
Luc: Would it cause a problem if you could not use roles in the Dictionary context?
15:10:58 [TomDN]
tlebo: I would have to have an extention property
15:11:50 [Paolo]
no objection
15:11:54 [pgroth]
q?
15:11:56 [TomDN]
pgroth: I think people just wanted to make role a bit more powerful, but were fine with the definition. Is there any objection to leaving role as it is?
15:12:04 [pgroth]
q?
15:12:11 [Luc]
@paul, for avoindance of doubt, can you record a resolution?
15:12:33 [Zakim]
+Curt_Tilmes
15:12:34 [pgroth]
proposed: leave role as currently defined
15:12:37 [KhalidBelhajjame]
+1
15:12:42 [satya]
+1
15:12:45 [Paolo]
+1
15:12:48 [TomDN]
+1
15:12:53 [jcheney]
0 - haven't been following but no objection
15:12:59 [SamCoppens]
+1
15:13:21 [smiles]
+1
15:13:24 [MacTed]
+0
15:13:31 [CraigTrim]
no objection
15:13:39 [pgroth]
accepted: leave role as currently defined
15:13:55 [pgroth]
Topic: Contextualization
15:14:19 [TomDN]
pgroth: Luc, can you give an overview?
15:14:44 [TomDN]
Luc: About a week ago, GK raised an issue that the provenance locator was too complex.
15:15:36 [TomDN]
... Reasons: Prov locator included things from the PAQ that would better not be mixed with the DM. THis was solved by removing these from the DM.
15:15:49 [pgroth]
@sandro are you there?
15:16:08 [TomDN]
... A second objection was that it seemed as a special case of derivation, and it might be better to use things that we already have.
15:16:11 [Luc]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:16:12 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:16:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, TomDN (muted), MacTed (muted), tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, ??P30, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, ??P41, satya, ??P3 (muted), Curt_Tilmes
15:16:15 [Zakim]
TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens
15:16:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see satya, jun, zednik, stephenc, CraigTrim, KhalidBelhajjame, smiles, Paolo, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, jcheney, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, MacTed,
15:16:15 [Zakim]
... stain, trackbot, sandro
15:16:29 [TomDN]
... We looked at this during the weekend, and came up with above.
15:16:29 [Luc]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html#term-contextualization
15:17:01 [TomDN]
... The idea is that a relation can be introduced that says that some thing is a contextualization of another thing.
15:17:24 [TomDN]
... Something that is a contextualization of another presents all aspects of the latter in a given context specified by descriptions found in a bundle.
15:17:44 [pgroth]
q?
15:17:56 [pgroth]
q?
15:18:03 [TomDN]
... Discussion with tim and simon seems to be reaching consensus.
15:18:17 [pgroth]
q?
15:18:28 [TomDN]
... In time, the provenance locator would disappear form prov DM, and the contextualization remains
15:18:37 [TomDN]
s/form/from
15:19:15 [TomDN]
pgroth: how does this relate to alternate/specialization?
15:19:48 [smiles]
q+
15:19:56 [TomDN]
Luc: difference with specialization is that contextualization looks at the aspects in a given context (bundle)
15:20:06 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:20:25 [Paolo]
q+
15:20:33 [TomDN]
smiles: At the moment it is a bit ambiguous
15:21:00 [TomDN]
... I suggest expressing contextualization as a relation between entity and bundle
15:21:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:21:30 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Paolo (10%)
15:21:30 [Luc]
i couldn't understand simon
15:22:25 [TomDN]
smiles: I don't have a problem with the current definition of contextualization, but changing the relationshi
15:22:40 [smiles]
q+
15:22:43 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:22:53 [TomDN]
... to an entity-bundle relationship might help distinguishing it from specialization
15:23:57 [tlebo]
contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to a "nonlocal" entity.
15:24:10 [TomDN]
paolo: Is this as in importing provenance from a different bundle?
15:24:20 [pgroth]
ack paolo
15:24:36 [TomDN]
... saying that "everything I say in that bundle about this entity, is also true in this bundle"
15:24:42 [Luc]
bundle ex:run1 activity(ex:a1, 2011-11-16T16:00:00,2011-11-16T17:00:00) //duration: 1hour wasAssociatedWith(ex:a1,ex:Bob,[prov:role="controller"]) endBundle
15:24:59 [pgroth]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-contextualization.html
15:25:44 [pgroth]
q?
15:25:51 [TomDN]
Luc: I think so (see example)
15:26:07 [TomDN]
Paolo: this is close to what I had in mind
15:26:32 [tlebo]
contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the "nonlocal" entity.
15:27:02 [TomDN]
Luc: it is not really "importing"
15:27:25 [TomDN]
... That is an implementation choice, but it is not specified anywhere.
15:27:39 [Paolo]
ack
15:27:46 [Paolo]
q?
15:27:47 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:28:17 [Zakim]
+??P12
15:28:24 [TomDN]
smiles: In the current DM, we say that a bundle is a set of descriptions. There's no reason for that set not to be contradictory with other sets.
15:29:00 [TomDN]
... My concern is that with this contextualization, we seem to suggest that there is some sort of coherence.
15:29:55 [pgroth]
+q
15:30:06 [stainPhone]
stainPhone has joined #prov
15:30:09 [pgroth]
q?
15:30:24 [tlebo]
q+ to propose the definition: contextualization is the specialization of a "nonlocal" entity by "fixing" the bundle that it is in. Once this is done, one can then use specialization _again_ to link a "local" entity to (the just-contextualized specialization of) the "nonlocal" entity.
15:30:29 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:30:31 [TomDN]
Luc: It's not our aim to imply any consistency
15:30:45 [TomDN]
smiles: OK, but then we should specify this clearly.
15:30:46 [pgroth]
q+
15:30:47 [Zakim]
-??P12
15:31:09 [TomDN]
tlebo: proposes the above definition.
15:31:19 [tlebo]
q-
15:32:11 [stainPhone]
stainPhone has joined #prov
15:32:13 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:32:28 [Zakim]
+??P12
15:32:31 [satya]
q+
15:32:42 [TomDN]
pgroth: 1. How core is it to the model? 2. Are we close to a definition?
15:33:45 [TomDN]
Luc: There are examples of where we need this construct. And currently there is no way to assert them.
15:33:53 [tlebo]
BTW, my definition is paired up with the example that I focus on: tool:analysis01 {    tool:Bob1        prov:specializationOf [              a prov:Entity;  prov:ContextualizedEntity;              prov:identifier  ex:Bob;              prov:inContext ex:run1;        ];    . }
15:34:25 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:34:26 [TomDN]
... I like Tim's definition, and can agree with Simon's suggestion. We hope to converge within a few days.
15:34:45 [tlebo]
bundles don't change.
15:34:48 [TomDN]
satya: What happens if the bundle is changed after a contextualization?
15:35:00 [TomDN]
... Does this propagate?
15:35:21 [tlebo]
+1 @luc, if the bundle changes, then you have a new bundle.
15:35:24 [TomDN]
Luc: If a bundle changes, it is another bundle
15:36:03 [TomDN]
satya: So there is no way that we will link those "updated" bundles?
15:36:09 [tlebo]
@satya, link a revised bundle to it's predecessor via PROV constructs specializationOf and wasRevisedFrom .
15:36:17 [TomDN]
... (as is often done in the Semantic Web)
15:36:33 [tlebo]
bundles are not buckets, they are sets of assertions.
15:36:59 [pgroth]
q?
15:37:01 [tlebo]
we have ways to link the bundles -- existing PROV constructs.
15:37:23 [TomDN]
@satya: indeed, the assertions don't change, just the bundle
15:38:03 [TomDN]
Luc: See Tim's comment.
15:38:22 [TomDN]
... I don't think we changed the semantics with this construct.
15:38:44 [TomDN]
... If you change a set of assertions, you need to give it a different name.
15:38:55 [satya]
agent(tool:ratedBob1, [perf:rating="good"])
15:39:46 [TomDN]
Luc: It seems the concern is rather to the notion of bundle, than to contextualization?
15:39:49 [TomDN]
satya: yes
15:40:25 [tlebo]
@satya where is "bundle consistency" proclaimed in PROV? bundles are just sets of assertions, regardless of consistency.
15:41:08 [tlebo]
bundling assertions does not imply consistency.
15:41:36 [pgroth]
q?
15:41:37 [TomDN]
satya: Since it is included as an example with the definition, it seems to someone reading the definition without knowing the discussion, that we are implying some semantics
15:42:24 [pgroth]
q?
15:42:24 [TomDN]
pgroth: Since there seems to be some convergence to this construct, we should try to work toward a definition everyone agrees with via the mailing list
15:42:38 [pgroth]
Topic: Collections
15:42:41 [Paolo]
(I'm afraid I am a lot more confused about this now than I was 1/2 hour ago...)
15:43:10 [Zakim]
+ +7.894.70.aacc
15:43:11 [TomDN]
pgroth: Tim proposed some changes to Collections
15:43:22 [TomDN]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0133.html
15:44:10 [stainPhone]
Zakim, +7.894.70.aacc is stain
15:44:19 [TomDN]
tlebo: only changes that affect the DM:
15:44:21 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
15:44:29 [TomDN]
... - the notion of complete collection
15:44:32 [pgroth]
q?
15:44:58 [TomDN]
... This optional attribute would be removed and changed to a domain extention
15:45:19 [TomDN]
... This is based on several concerns received about 'complete' Collections
15:45:36 [TomDN]
... in an open world
15:46:06 [pgroth]
q?
15:47:02 [TomDN]
Luc: Something more fundamental needs to be discussed...
15:47:28 [TomDN]
... Currently, we have a notion of empty Collection/Dictionary
15:47:36 [TomDN]
... and a notion of insertion
15:47:37 [Zakim]
-satya
15:48:01 [Zakim]
+[GVoice]
15:48:17 [TomDN]
... If you start with an empty Dictionary, and insert something, you have full knowledge about the Dictionary
15:48:27 [satya]
Zakim, [GVoice] is satya
15:48:27 [Zakim]
+satya; got it
15:48:30 [TomDN]
... Dito for removal
15:48:31 [pgroth]
q?
15:49:03 [Zakim]
-??P12
15:49:35 [TomDN]
... What we call a 'complete membership' when you are inserting into an empty Dictionary.
15:50:17 [pgroth]
q?
15:50:18 [TomDN]
... The normal memberOf was added to allow insertion into an unspecified Dictionary
15:50:22 [pgroth]
q?
15:50:42 [tlebo]
FWIW, my work on Dictionary was centering around the example at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership/rdf/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership.ttl
15:51:02 [TomDN]
pgroth: There's a difference between asserting that something is closed, and the thing actually being closed.
15:51:14 [tlebo]
+1 pgroth
15:51:15 [pgroth]
q?
15:51:30 [stainPhone]
q+
15:51:39 [pgroth]
ack stainPhone
15:52:13 [tlebo]
I'm using Paul's former to agree with keeping "completeness" in (asserting that something is closed). I'm ignoring his latter (the thing actually being closed).
15:53:07 [TomDN]
(could you put your question on IRC stain? (sorry, missed it))
15:53:11 [stainPhone]
Ok
15:53:51 [TomDN]
Luc: what the model allows it that if you inserted e1 in d1, and that lead to d2.
15:54:08 [TomDN]
... you can still have that you insert something into d1, and that becomes d3
15:54:27 [pgroth]
q?
15:55:09 [TomDN]
pgroth: What is the conflict of what Tim proposes and the current DM?
15:55:20 [Paolo]
q+
15:55:22 [stainPhone]
I asked if dictionary insertions and removals are strictly functional, or if you could have both wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k1,v1)) and second wasInsertedFrom(a,b,(k2,v2)) with additional key value pair
15:55:33 [stainPhone]
Luc said that no, only one assertion. (right?)
15:55:35 [TomDN]
Luc: not much. If we drop the attribute, we can still assert everything. We have the same expressivity
15:57:08 [KhalidBelhajjame]
Yes Paolo, I remember the initial discussion
15:57:14 [pgroth]
q?
15:57:18 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:57:23 [tlebo]
FWIW, I've catalyzed this proposal for a variety of people. I've personally withdrawn my objections, but haven't heard others continuing to object.
15:57:53 [pgroth]
q?
15:57:58 [TomDN]
Paolo: This seems to go back to a previous discussion we had about the Open World assumption, and why we introduced the notion of completeness in the first place
15:58:03 [Zakim]
-satya
15:58:10 [tlebo]
yes, so I don't see anybody objecting.
15:58:16 [stainPhone]
Who are they?
15:58:18 [Luc]
who was objecting?
15:58:33 [pgroth]
q?
15:58:38 [TomDN]
pgroth: does anyone object to leaving it as it is now?
15:58:46 [TomDN]
(silence)
15:58:47 [stainPhone]
I'll pay them a visit! ;)
15:59:08 [Zakim]
+[GVoice]
15:59:27 [Zakim]
-??P3
15:59:28 [TomDN]
pgroth: Maybe we should just put somewhere: "You can assert completeness, but you can never guarantee it"
15:59:40 [tlebo]
+1 paul, we're asserting it and not guaranteeing it. This is what resolved my objection.
15:59:41 [pgroth]
action: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness
15:59:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-91 - Add some text around collections to clarify completness [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-06-14].
15:59:46 [TomDN]
Luc: will add some text for this.
16:00:12 [Paolo]
well can you guarantee anything in provenance that you can express??
16:00:13 [KhalidBelhajjame]
bye
16:00:15 [Zakim]
-??P30
16:00:19 [Zakim]
-KhalidBelhajjame
16:00:21 [Zakim]
-Luc
16:00:23 [Zakim]
- +44.131.467.aabb
16:00:24 [Zakim]
-Paolo
16:00:24 [Zakim]
-Curt_Tilmes
16:00:26 [TomDN]
no prob :)
16:00:27 [pgroth]
thanks tom
16:00:28 [Zakim]
-stain
16:00:32 [Zakim]
- +1.661.382.aaaa
16:00:33 [SamCoppens]
bye
16:00:33 [Zakim]
-[GVoice]
16:00:38 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
16:00:40 [Zakim]
-??P41
16:00:41 [tlebo]
bye!
16:00:42 [TomDN]
@ Paolo: id say no, then it'd be called Trust
16:00:43 [Zakim]
-MacTed
16:00:44 [Zakim]
-tlebo
16:00:45 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:00:52 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
16:00:52 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:00:52 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been TomDN, pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, SamCoppens, Paolo, KhalidBelhajjame, satya, stain,
16:00:55 [Zakim]
... [GVoice]
16:01:00 [TomDN]
Zakim, unmute me
16:01:00 [Zakim]
TomDN should no longer be muted
16:01:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:01 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-actions.rdf :
16:01:01 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Luc to add some text around collections to clarify completness [1]
16:01:01 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-prov-irc#T15-59-41