IRC log of prov on 2012-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:24:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:24:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:24:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:24:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:24:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:24:35 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:24:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:24:36 [trackbot]
Date: 13 September 2012
14:24:52 [ivan]
zakim, this will be prov
14:24:52 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
14:55:19 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
14:55:41 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
14:57:49 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:56 [Zakim]
14:58:14 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:58:25 [Zakim]
14:59:00 [Zakim]
14:59:07 [pgroth]
trackbot, start telcon
14:59:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:59:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:59:12 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:59:12 [trackbot]
Date: 13 September 2012
14:59:15 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:59:15 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
14:59:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aaaa
14:59:20 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:59:25 [pgroth]
Scribe: Satya Sahoo
14:59:36 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:36 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:37 [Zakim]
14:59:44 [pgroth]
Regrets: Simon Miles, James Cheney, Curt Tilmes, Khalid Belhajjame, Graham Klyne
14:59:51 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:00:42 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
15:01:04 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
15:01:32 [pgroth]
15:01:37 [satya]
Paul: Agenda items: updates on F2F, PROV-O admin issues, outstanding issues, and implementation reports
15:01:39 [pgroth]
Minutes of the September 6, 2012 Telecon
15:01:52 [satya]
15:01:58 [ivan]
15:02:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aabb
15:02:27 [Dong_]
Dong_ has joined #prov
15:02:51 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:02:51 [pgroth]
approved: Minutes of the September 6, 2012 Telecon
15:03:04 [Zakim]
15:03:10 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:03:16 [jun]
zakim, IPcaller is me
15:03:16 [CraigTrim]
CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:03:22 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:03:27 [satya]
Paul: Open action on Paulo, Paul still open
15:04:11 [satya]
Paul: Action item regarding XML schema definition
15:04:13 [Zakim]
15:04:23 [satya]
Hook: Completed the XSD
15:04:29 [satya]
Paul: Action item on Hook closed
15:04:52 [pgroth]
Topic: F2F4
15:04:52 [satya]
Paul: Please sign up for scribe
15:04:58 [pgroth]
15:05:04 [satya]
Paul: Next agenda item regarding 4th F2F
15:05:20 [Zakim]
15:05:21 [satya]
Paul: Please sign for the F2F either remotely or in person
15:05:28 [pgroth]
15:05:30 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
15:05:34 [Zakim]
15:05:35 [satya]
Paul: Question regarding F2F?
15:05:38 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-o telcon
15:05:43 [Zakim]
15:05:51 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:05:54 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:05:56 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:06:01 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:06:16 [satya]
Paul: PROV-O telcon was important for development of the ontology, currently responding to the comments
15:06:29 [Luc]
15:06:44 [pgroth]
15:06:45 [Luc]
q+ to suggest prov-xml team could use the prov-o slot
15:06:46 [satya]
Paul: Discussed with prov-o team to roll in the prov-o discussion items into the regular PROV call
15:06:50 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:06:50 [Zakim]
Luc, you wanted to suggest prov-xml team could use the prov-o slot
15:07:17 [Zakim]
15:07:19 [satya]
Luc: PROV-XML team may want to use the PROV-O time slot on Monday for discussion
15:07:22 [zednik]
15:07:23 [pgroth]
15:07:23 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
15:07:29 [pgroth]
ack zednik
15:07:43 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:07:44 [satya]
Stephan: Agree if rest of the PROV-XML team agrees
15:07:51 [TomDN]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:07:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Satya_Sahoo, Luc, ??P2, +1.315.330.aaaa, Ivan, +1.818.731.aabb, jun, ??P8, ??P5, MacTed (muted), Luc.a, TomDN
15:07:57 [hook]
sounds good
15:08:05 [TomDN]
Zakim, Samcoppens is with TomDN
15:08:05 [Zakim]
+Samcoppens; got it
15:08:11 [pgroth]
15:08:23 [satya]
Paul: PROV-XML will use the monday timeslot for meetings
15:08:26 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Constraints Dissemination
15:08:27 [TomDN]
Zakim, mute me
15:08:27 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
15:08:35 [pgroth]
15:08:40 [satya]
Paul: Next agenda item: PROV constraints dissemination
15:08:57 [satya]
Paul: Congrats to the editors of PROV constraints!
15:09:19 [Luc]
15:09:37 [satya]
Paul: Paolo, Luc created a blog post describing the PROV constraints
15:09:48 [satya]
Paul: Please share the blog with others
15:10:05 [satya]
Paul: Can someone volunteer to share this with various maling lists
15:10:26 [satya]
15:10:30 [pgroth]
ivan to semweb list
15:10:53 [pgroth]
satya to hclrs
15:11:23 [satya]
Paul: Luc can share with provenance challenge
15:11:23 [pgroth]
luc provenance challenge mailing list
15:11:46 [satya]
Paul: James to share with Dagstuhl mailing list
15:11:46 [pgroth]
james cheney to mailing list
15:11:48 [pgroth]
15:12:21 [pgroth]
Topic: Resolving Issues
15:12:57 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:12:57 [satya]
Paul: Issues raised for PROV-DM (primarily from Robert@Mayo clinic)
15:13:02 [pgroth]
Zakim, who's noisy
15:13:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's noisy', pgroth
15:13:10 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (69%), ??P2 (9%), Ivan (9%)
15:13:11 [pgroth]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:13:17 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:13:17 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:13:27 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:13:29 [satya]
Luc: Reviewed the feedback for comments that require changes to the data model
15:13:41 [satya]
Luc: Drafted responses to these specific issues
15:14:00 [satya]
Luc: ISSUE 532 regarding roles, to allow roles for more relations
15:14:17 [Luc]
15:14:31 [satya]
Luc: WG decided against this as there was no satisfactory resolution
15:15:19 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:15:24 [satya]
Luc: Protocol to follow to resolve these issues - vote or put it up for discussion on a wiki page
15:15:53 [ivan]
15:15:58 [satya]
Paul: If there are no objections raised by a particular date, then confirm with the person who raised the issue
15:16:14 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
15:16:14 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
15:17:22 [satya]
Ivan: It is good to have a confirmation to the proposed solution, but it may not be always possible
15:17:43 [Zakim]
15:18:40 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
15:18:57 [pgroth]
15:19:15 [satya]
Paul: Let the WG consider the response by Monday and then get back to the person raising the issue
15:19:28 [satya]
Luc: Where should the response be posted?
15:19:37 [satya]
Ivan: In the tracker
15:20:24 [satya]
Ivan: The response should include links to the person's confirmation
15:20:49 [satya]
Luc: ISSUE 525: Specialization and Alternate to be subtype of Influence
15:21:15 [satya]
Luc: WG resolution on this issue
15:21:29 [pgroth]
note, working group members should respond to these suggestions by monday
15:21:37 [pgroth]
15:21:40 [pgroth]
15:21:45 [satya]
Luc: Questions/comments on ISSUE 525
15:22:31 [satya]
Luc: Include attributes for these relations, create patterns similar to the relations
15:22:50 [satya]
Luc: There was decision against this approach
15:22:50 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:23:07 [satya]
Paul: Should include this discussion in the response
15:23:49 [satya]
Paul: Add a section to the wiki page for the issue to include updates
15:23:56 [pgroth]
15:24:42 [satya]
Luc: ISSUE 507: wasAssociatedWith in DM, PROV-O includes this property and also an inverse relation - to include the inverse relation in DM
15:25:03 [ivan]
15:25:29 [pgroth]
ack ivan
15:25:31 [satya]
Luc: In relational design, we do not include inverse relations. PROV-O includes inverse relations due to OWL/RDF
15:25:37 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:25:47 [MacTed]
15:25:55 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:25:55 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:26:03 [satya]
Ivan: Understands Luc's point, Is it necessary to have an inverse relation?
15:26:08 [Zakim]
15:26:15 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:26:15 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:26:22 [zednik]
15:26:37 [satya]
Ivan: It is usual to have this pattern in an ontology, but it may lead to complexity
15:26:42 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
15:27:06 [satya]
Mac: The notion of what is a relation and what is its inverse is arbitrary
15:27:07 [pgroth]
ack zednik
15:27:16 [satya]
Mac: So, both should be there
15:28:04 [satya]
Stephen: There was a lot of discussion in PROV-O regarding this, it is currently a suggestion for the inverse properties (to ensure consistent naming)
15:28:19 [satya]
Stephen: The inverse is not always explicitly specified
15:28:44 [satya]
Ivan: Not sure what does it mean - are they part of the OWL file?
15:29:02 [satya]
Tim: They are not, the inverse are in a separate OWL file
15:29:32 [satya]
Ivan: Not convinced, not having them at all is a better solution
15:30:10 [satya]
Tim: PROV-O tried to reach a compromise and the current solution is after long discussion
15:30:49 [satya]
Luc: PROV-O does not include inverse relation, hence it is normative - so PROV-O and DM are aligned
15:30:56 [satya]
Luc: Will rephrase the answer
15:30:58 [Luc]
15:31:04 [Luc]
15:31:12 [ivan]
15:31:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-504 -- Data Model Section 2.2.2 -- open
15:31:12 [trackbot]
15:31:20 [satya]
Luc: ISSUE-504, regarding bundles and collections
15:32:48 [satya]
Luc: WG has discussed this issue on multiple points - WG resolved not to have identifiers on provenance assertions, bundles allow assertion of identifiers and make statements about bundles
15:33:11 [Luc]
15:33:12 [satya]
Luc: WG considers this as a good compromise
15:33:44 [satya]
Paul: Include a change in definition of collections?
15:34:33 [Luc]
15:34:55 [satya]
Luc: ISSUE 503: regarding agents that adopt a plan
15:35:35 [satya]
Luc: wasAdoptedBy should be a new definition in PROV to allow plan to be assigned to agent without use of activity
15:35:42 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:35:42 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:36:05 [satya]
Luc: Responded to Paul separately, not sure what is to be done here
15:36:22 [Luc]
15:36:32 [dgarijo]
15:36:41 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
15:37:03 [satya]
Daniel: Does he have a use case that would justify the introduction of this new relation?
15:37:15 [satya]
Luc: Not to my knowledge
15:37:23 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:37:23 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:37:37 [satya]
Daniel: We have enough relations to cover this use, so would not vote to have a new relation
15:37:57 [dgarijo]
that makes sense
15:38:06 [satya]
Paul: Is this relation an easy extension to existing PROV model?
15:38:40 [satya]
Tim: Would it be a property chain or qualified association based rule?
15:39:04 [satya]
Paul: This suggestion can be included in the response
15:40:16 [satya]
Luc: Will edit the wiki page tomorrow and send mail - give time till Tuesday
15:40:35 [satya]
Paul: Any objections to have responses to this discussion by Tuesday?
15:41:03 [pgroth]
accepted: to have responses to the issues in the agenda by tuesday
15:41:20 [pgroth]
15:41:57 [pgroth]
Topic: Subactivity
15:41:58 [satya]
Paul: Next agenda item is discussion about subactivity
15:42:05 [pgroth]
15:42:32 [satya]
Paul: ISSUE 447, several request to introduce a sub activity relation in the model followed by mailing list discussion
15:43:38 [satya]
Paul: It may be a good idea according to some members, but others have reservations that introduction of the new relation will have repurcussions across model and constrains (some of which may have not be considered at all)
15:43:57 [satya]
Paul: One proposed option is use dc partOf relation
15:44:19 [satya]
15:44:24 [Luc]
15:44:24 [pgroth]
15:44:32 [dgarijo]
I think we should go for dcterms:hasPart.
15:44:35 [satya]
Paul: Whether to include or leave out this?
15:44:41 [zednik]
15:44:41 [Luc]
15:44:44 [satya]
@Daniel +1
15:45:22 [Paolo]
I expressed my view on the list -- I'd rather leave it out of the model
15:45:34 [pgroth]
ack zednik
15:45:35 [satya]
Stephan: Can this be included in the best practices document? But not include this in specs
15:45:41 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:46:08 [satya]
Luc: Daniel please clarify proposed use of dcterms:hasPart
15:46:20 [pgroth]
15:47:12 [satya]
Daniel: Keen to have it in a document, but not in ontology - is there a proposal for a best practices document as it would allow inclusion of some issues currently pending in PROV-O also
15:47:52 [dgarijo]
15:47:52 [Luc]
@zednik: should it be an FAQ?
15:47:59 [satya]
Stephan: (answering to Luc) Last F2F discussed creation of best practices document - it will be a note and not a spec
15:48:18 [satya]
Stephan: It will be a kind of FAQ, maybe part of FAQ
15:48:30 [MacTed]
+1 "this is a common need; here's how best to satisfy it with what we've done"
15:49:17 [Luc]
proposed: subactivity relation will not be included in normative documents, but instead would be described in light weight document, such as FAQ/best practice
15:49:19 [satya]
Paul: We have identified the DC document as a best practice document, strongly support a FAQ document
15:49:57 [satya]
Paul: FAQ will sidestep the complications associated with a spec, so this FAQ can also be updated
15:50:00 [Luc]
proposed: subactivity relation will not be included in normative documents, but instead would be described in light weight document, such as FAQ/best practice
15:50:12 [dgarijo]
15:50:24 [zednik]
15:50:29 [ivan]
15:50:31 [MacTed]
15:50:32 [satya]
15:50:34 [SamCoppens]
15:50:34 [TomDN]
15:50:39 [Paolo]
15:50:41 [hook]
15:50:55 [satya]
Tim: +1
15:50:57 [jun]
15:51:06 [Dong]
15:51:23 [Luc]
accepted: subactivity relation will not be included in normative documents, but instead would be described in light weight document, such as FAQ/best practice
15:51:51 [satya]
Paul: Will setup FAQ that can also be referenced when responding to feedback
15:51:56 [pgroth]
action: setup faq
15:51:56 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - setup
15:52:00 [ivan]
15:52:04 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:52:11 [pgroth]
action: pgroth setup faq
15:52:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-115 - Setup faq [on Paul Groth - due 2012-09-20].
15:52:16 [ivan]
15:52:16 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:52:18 [pgroth]
ack ivan
15:53:14 [satya]
Ivan: There is a SW activity wiki, which can be used after WG formally closes - create a separate section on the wiki that can be continously used
15:53:23 [satya]
Paul: Nice idea
15:53:45 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:53:45 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:53:49 [pgroth]
Topic: Implementation Report
15:53:51 [satya]
Paul: Will set up a PROV subsection on SW wiki
15:53:55 [pgroth]
15:54:13 [satya]
Paul: Thanks to Dong and Stephan to creating the implementation document
15:54:45 [satya]
Paul: The skeleton of the document mirrors Stephan's questionnaire
15:55:18 [satya]
Paul: Reviewing the implementation document
15:57:14 [pgroth]
15:57:21 [satya]
Paul: Comments/questions about the structure of the implementation document?
15:57:24 [ivan]
(looked fine to me...)
15:58:01 [satya]
Tim: Are there instructions to allow responders to add to this document?
15:58:09 [satya]
Paul: Part of the questionnaire
15:58:29 [pgroth]
15:58:38 [satya]
Stephan: Questionnaire is a spreadsheet so should be easy to map to document
15:59:21 [satya]
Paul: Have a question about constraint section, it currently does not have a test case for implementation of the constraints
15:59:48 [satya]
Paul: Should there be a test harness for this - concern that this will require significant work
15:59:50 [pgroth]
16:00:06 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
16:00:06 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
16:00:08 [satya]
Paul: Question is whether it is needed and who will do it?
16:00:11 [Luc]
16:00:32 [satya]
Ivan: Not sure about test case environment
16:01:08 [satya]
Paul: This environment allows testing a set of provenance assertions to be valid or invalid
16:01:09 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aabb
16:01:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aacc
16:01:58 [satya]
Ivan: Nice to have an environment to make testing easier, but making a complete test environment requires lot of effort so not sure it can be done
16:03:00 [satya]
Luc: I am implementing a validator and it involves lot of work - tests unification algorithm and requires lot of test cases (excludes temporal constraints)
16:03:20 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
16:03:35 [satya]
Luc: Does not guarantee complete coverage and not sure when a stable state test cases can be shared with rest of WG
16:04:19 [satya]
Luc: So, not sure how the test cases can be re-used by others
16:04:44 [satya]
Luc: May require development of a common API, so not an easy task
16:05:09 [Dong]
@zednik PROV-CONSTRAINTS now has 58 in total, I think the questionnaire still uses the constraints from the previous version of the document.
16:05:23 [satya]
@Paul: sorry, I have to leave now can someone take over as scribe
16:05:29 [pgroth]
16:05:29 [zednik]
@dong, thanks I'll look into that
16:05:34 [pgroth]
can someone scribe?
16:05:43 [dgarijo]
I can
16:05:45 [pgroth]
16:05:52 [pgroth]
scribe: dgarijo
16:05:52 [satya]
thanks Dani!
16:06:10 [Zakim]
16:06:19 [dgarijo]
Ivan: we need test cases when we can infer additional things. If it can be automatized, good.
16:07:03 [dgarijo]
Luc: the complete normal form is not necessarily represented in Prov.
16:07:04 [Zakim]
16:07:24 [dgarijo]
Ivan: that is a lot of work. This formats may have their own live after the group finishes
16:08:00 [dgarijo]
Paul: even if we divide ourselves, we can't guarantee complete cover
16:08:58 [stain]
hm, how 10 minuets becomes an hour.. I missed the whole thing!
16:09:00 [dgarijo]
Ivan: that's different. Test cases are never 100% complete (corner cases not covered). It should be possible to come up with a collection of test cases that the group supports. If not, we have a problem
16:09:30 [stain]
is it still going on? Where in the agenda are we?
16:09:45 [dgarijo]
... everybody will have to have his own test cases and be able to report them back to us
16:09:54 [dgarijo]
@stain: we are discussing the implementation
16:09:57 [stephenc]
SPARQL working group have a nice vocabulary for defining their test cases.
16:10:27 [dgarijo]
pgroth: the next thing to do is to find how to define the test cases.
16:11:06 [dgarijo]
Ivan: there are many other groups that have been doing this. It may be worth taking a look
16:11:19 [Dong]
ok, sure
16:11:24 [Zakim]
16:11:29 [dgarijo]
pgroth: stephen, dong would you take a look at that?
16:11:34 [dgarijo]
stephen: ok
16:11:41 [dgarijo]
pgroth: we are out of time
16:11:53 [dgarijo]
... we'll catch up online
16:11:59 [Zakim]
- +1.315.330.aaaa
16:12:07 [Dong]
thanks, bye
16:12:09 [stainPhone]
stainPhone has joined #prov
16:12:11 [Zakim]
16:12:12 [Zakim]
16:12:13 [Zakim]
16:12:14 [Zakim]
16:12:14 [Zakim]
16:12:15 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aacc
16:12:15 [Zakim]
16:12:18 [Zakim]
16:12:20 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
16:12:22 [Zakim]
16:12:26 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:12:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:12:30 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
16:12:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:12:30 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Satya_Sahoo, Luc, +1.315.330.aaaa, Ivan, +1.818.731.aabb, jun, MacTed, TomDN, Samcoppens, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc, stainPhone
16:12:38 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:12:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:12:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:12:39 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
16:12:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: setup faq [1]
16:12:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:12:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth setup faq [2]
16:12:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in