15:26:10 <satya> pgroth: Update on Model task force

15:26:33 <dgarijo> @Paul=Paolo

15:26:40 <satya> Paolo: Three step plan, (a) cleaning up the provenance concept definitions

15:27:02 <dgarijo> ips

15:27:14 <satya> Paolo: Conference call tomorrow to discuss the F2F draft

15:27:35 <satya> Paolo: (b) Create draft by end of June

15:27:57 <satya> Paolo: (c) Put the draft for discussion during F2F

15:28:48 <satya> pgroth: Definitions derived from CS will make it more complex

15:28:51 <JimM> +q

15:29:17 <satya> Paolo: We can use existing modeling work to define the provenance terms

15:29:56 <satya> Paolo: There are inconsistencies in the provenance concept terms

15:31:02 <satya> Jim: The definitions are consistent but specific parameters associated with terms are not very clear (?)

15:31:04 <smiles> q+

15:31:28 <JimM> -q

15:32:04 <satya> Paolo: Will try to reconcile the different descriptions

15:32:41 <satya> pgroth: Agreed to derive common sense definitions

15:33:13 <satya> pgroth: Agreed on the definition of "thing"

15:33:36 <satya> q+

15:34:07 <satya> Paolo: Tomorrow's Model task force telcon can help in reconciling the different definitions

15:34:59 <satya> smiles: The primer of the WG will help users to understand the provenance concept definitions

15:35:41 <stain> @paolo +10

15:35:49 <smiles> q-

15:36:52 <satya> q-

15:37:01 <GK> q+ to note a common WG principle is that consensus can be reviewed *iff* there is new information.

15:37:58 <satya> pgroth: We need to move forward after a consensus is reached

15:38:08 <stain> .. almost like a court case

15:38:58 <GK> q-

15:39:38 <satya> Paolo: Model task force participants will be present at F2F

15:40:52 <Paolo> @satya: agree

15:41:26 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaii

<pgroth> TOPIC: Discussion on Temporal Concepts for the Model Task Force

<pgroth> Summary: There was a discussion around whether time needed to be explicit in the model or whether it was optional. Additional, the difference between temporal ordering and time was discussed.

15:41:40 <satya> pgroth: Discussion on temporal properties

Paul Groth: Discussion on temporal properties ←

15:41:50 <pgroth> Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times

Paul Groth: Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times ←

15:42:15 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:42:16 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:42:20 <tfrancart> +1

Thomas Francart: +1 ←

15:42:21 <GK> 0

Graham Klyne: 0 ←

15:42:22 <satya> pgroth: Should we discuss about temporal properties now?

Paul Groth: Should we discuss about temporal properties now? ←

15:42:27 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:42:29 <Paolo> -1 : none seems controversial to me

Paolo Missier: -1 : none seems controversial to me ←

15:42:29 <satya> 0

0 ←

15:42:30 <Lena> 0

Helena Deus: 0 ←

15:42:31 <JimM> 0

James Myers: 0 ←

15:42:32 <iker> +1

Iker Huerga: +1 ←

15:42:33 <zednik> 0

Stephan Zednik: 0 ←

15:42:35 <Yogesh> 0

Yogesh Simmhan: 0 ←

15:42:41 <dcorsar> 0

David Corsar: 0 ←

15:42:44 <smiles> 0

Simon Miles: 0 ←

15:42:50 <kai> 0

Kai Eckert: 0 ←

15:42:55 <tlebo> 0

Timothy Lebo: 0 ←

15:43:39 <pgroth> Proposed: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times

PROPOSED: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times ←

15:43:51 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:43:52 <stain> -1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: -1 ←

15:43:53 <stain> q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←

15:44:03 <satya> pgroth: Agreement over the proposed definition?

Paul Groth: Agreement over the proposed definition? ←

15:44:21 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:44:31 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:44:37 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←

15:44:47 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+ ←

15:45:10 <satya> Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing

Stephan Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing ←

15:45:37 <Zakim> +??P29

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←

15:45:37 <GK> Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct?

Graham Klyne: Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct? ←

15:45:43 <jcheney> zakim, ??P29 is me

James Cheney: zakim, ??P29 is me ←

15:45:43 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←

15:45:47 <satya> Stain: Agrees with stephan zednik

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Agrees with stephan zednik ←

15:46:34 <satya> Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic

Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic ←

15:46:44 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q? ←

15:46:50 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

15:46:51 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik ←

15:46:55 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

15:46:59 <pgroth> acd Paolo

Paul Groth: acd Paolo ←

15:47:02 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:47:05 <Paolo> @Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-))

Paolo Missier: @Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-)) ←

15:47:08 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles ←

15:47:15 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

15:47:18 <tlebo> q+ (for Paulo)

Timothy Lebo: q+ (for Paulo) ←

15:47:22 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q? ←

15:47:23 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+ ←

15:47:25 <satya> smiles: Agrees with past three speakers, seems to be unnecessary

Simon Miles: Agrees with past three speakers, seems to be unnecessary ←

15:47:33 <smiles> q-

Simon Miles: q- ←

15:47:37 <satya> smiles: Discussing about this

Simon Miles: Discussing about this ←

15:47:39 <tlebo> q

Timothy Lebo: q ←

15:47:43 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

15:47:45 <stain> @Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :) ←

15:47:48 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q? ←

15:48:06 <tlebo> q- (for Paulo)

Timothy Lebo: q- (for Paulo) ←

15:48:08 <satya> Paulo: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded ←

15:48:23 <dgarijo> @stain: that's a nice point.

Daniel Garijo: @stain: that's a nice point. ←

15:48:50 <GK> @stian, @dgarijo +1

Graham Klyne: @stian, @dgarijo +1 ←

15:49:29 <satya> Paulo: We need to understand the context of the notion of time

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: We need to understand the context of the notion of time ←

15:49:31 <JimM> +q

James Myers: +q ←

15:49:55 <Zakim> -jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: -jorn ←

15:50:09 <GK> Ah, yes, pseudo-time?

Graham Klyne: Ah, yes, pseudo-time? ←

15:50:26 <stain> @JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks? ←

15:50:32 <satya> Jim: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account

James Myers: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account ←

15:50:56 <smiles> yes

Simon Miles: yes ←

15:50:59 <stain> yes

Stian Soiland-Reyes: yes ←

15:50:59 <Paolo> @pgroth: yes

Paolo Missier: @pgroth: yes ←

15:51:00 <zednik> yes

Stephan Zednik: yes ←

15:51:03 <tlebo> no

Timothy Lebo: no ←

15:51:06 <GK> q+ I think we *can* have provenance without time

Graham Klyne: q+ I think we *can* have provenance without time ←

15:51:08 <satya> pgroth: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time

Paul Groth: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time ←

15:51:09 <Lena> yes

Helena Deus: yes ←

15:51:14 <GK> I think we *can* have provenance without time

Graham Klyne: I think we *can* have provenance without time ←

15:51:15 <JimM> @stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks

James Myers: @stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks ←

15:51:23 <JimM> -q

James Myers: -q ←

15:51:27 <stain> q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←

15:51:29 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←

15:51:33 <satya> GK: We can have provenance time

Graham Klyne: We can have provenance time ←

15:51:33 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me

Jörn Hees: zakim, ??p2 is me ←

15:51:33 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jorn; got it ←

15:51:41 <dgarijo> I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary.

Daniel Garijo: I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary. ←

15:51:58 <JimM> yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance

James Myers: yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance ←

15:52:00 <GK> @dgarijo, agreed.

Graham Klyne: @dgarijo, agreed. ←

15:52:09 <satya> Stian: Likes to have notion of profile

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Likes to have notion of profile ←

15:52:13 <satya> q+

q+ ←

15:52:16 <smiles> @stain completely agree

Simon Miles: @stain completely agree ←

15:52:20 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

15:52:24 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

15:52:40 <stain> Stian: Also that you can have provenance without Time (Taverna workflow system has that in current OPM export - but the provenance still makes sense)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Also that you can have provenance without Time (Taverna workflow system has that in current OPM export - but the provenance still makes sense) [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←

15:52:45 <Paolo> better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine

Paolo Missier: better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine ←

15:52:49 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+ ←

15:53:20 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:53:22 <stain> and such a common order might not even exist

Stian Soiland-Reyes: and such a common order might not even exist ←

15:53:52 <JimM> would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies?

James Myers: would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies? ←

15:53:57 <GK> Sometimes, you just don't know.  If time info is available that that can help.

Graham Klyne: Sometimes, you just don't know. If time info is available that that can help. ←

15:54:24 <satya> Tim: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time

Timothy Lebo: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time ←

15:54:24 <stain> @GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications ←

15:54:27 <Paolo> indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks

Paolo Missier: indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks ←

15:54:36 <stain> so you need provenance of the timestamps!

Stian Soiland-Reyes: so you need provenance of the timestamps! ←

15:55:20 <Paolo> @Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this

Paolo Missier: @Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this ←

15:55:56 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←

15:56:00 <satya> @Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it  is not a universal requirement

@Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it is not a universal requirement ←

15:56:22 <stain> say account1 is a probe orbiting the sun and reporting solar spots. Account2 is the same, but from a telescope at earth. If they also look at some astronomical event, they might not even going to agree on temporal ordering.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: say account1 is a probe orbiting the sun and reporting solar spots. Account2 is the same, but from a telescope at earth. If they also look at some astronomical event, they might not even going to agree on temporal ordering. ←

15:56:22 <GK> For me, this important/interesting thing about this discussion is how to reconcile conflicting provenance accounts; provenance for provenance may help, and may include time and other factors (e.g. trust)

Graham Klyne: For me, this important/interesting thing about this discussion is how to reconcile conflicting provenance accounts; provenance for provenance may help, and may include time and other factors (e.g. trust) ←

15:56:33 <satya> pgroth: Is there a need for temporal ordering

Paul Groth: Is there a need for temporal ordering ←

15:57:15 <satya> GK: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information

Graham Klyne: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information ←

15:57:24 <Paolo> if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble

Paolo Missier: if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble ←

15:57:25 <stain> GK: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required

Graham Klyne: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←

15:57:35 <Zakim> +??P29

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←

15:57:54 <stain> if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel

Stian Soiland-Reyes: if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel ←

15:58:16 <JimM> timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions

James Myers: timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions ←

15:58:19 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:58:20 <GK> q+ to add a qualification if consensus can be found

Graham Klyne: q+ to add a qualification if consensus can be found ←

15:58:22 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

15:58:27 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:58:27 <zednik> +1 : time stamps addressed, but not required

Stephan Zednik: +1 : time stamps addressed, but not required ←

15:58:31 <satya> pgroth: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it

Paul Groth: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it ←

15:58:33 <Zakim> -??P28

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P28 ←

15:58:35 <jcheney> +1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics

James Cheney: +1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics ←

15:58:38 <JimM> q?

James Myers: q? ←

15:58:43 <smiles> ack smiles

Simon Miles: ack smiles ←

15:58:47 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

15:58:54 <Zakim> -Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh ←

15:59:21 <JimM> +q

James Myers: +q ←

15:59:26 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

15:59:26 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found ←

15:59:30 <pgroth> ack JimM

Paul Groth: ack JimM ←

15:59:31 <Lena> is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not?

Helena Deus: is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not? ←

15:59:32 <GK> +1, (subject to consensus qualification)

Graham Klyne: +1, (subject to consensus qualification) ←

16:00:14 <Lena> or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance?

Helena Deus: or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance? ←

16:00:22 <satya> Jim: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions

James Myers: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions ←

16:00:53 <GK> (Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that)

Graham Klyne: (Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that) ←

16:01:05 <satya> Jim: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description

James Myers: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description ←

16:01:24 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

16:01:27 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aaii

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.315.330.aaii ←

16:01:30 <Zakim> - +1.509.375.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.509.375.aagg ←

16:01:31 <pgroth> zakim, bye

Paul Groth: zakim, bye ←

16:01:37 <jorn> bye

Jörn Hees: bye ←

16:01:40 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa, pgroth, +1.213.290.aabb, Yogesh, stain, GK, +1.832.386.aadd, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.509.375.aaff, JimM, dgarijo,

Zakim IRC Bot: leaving. As of this point the attendees were jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa, pgroth, +1.213.290.aabb, Yogesh, stain, GK, +1.832.386.aadd, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.509.375.aaff, JimM, dgarijo, ←

16:01:40 <JimM> time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence

James Myers: time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence ←

16:01:43 <Zakim> ... Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii ←

16:01:48 <pgroth> zakim, make log public

Paul Groth: zakim, make log public ←

16:02:02 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make log public ←

16:02:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←

16:02:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←

16:03:13 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/HowToSetUp

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/HowToSetUp ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---