<luc>subtopic: Time

14:50:42 <SamCoppens> Scribe: SamCoppens

(Scribe set to Sam Coppens)

14:51:34 <Luc> PROPOSED: assertions about time are useful but are optional

PROPOSED: assertions about time are useful but are optional ←

14:52:10 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1 ←

14:52:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

14:52:14 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

14:52:16 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

14:52:17 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

14:52:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

14:52:18 <SamCoppens> +1

+1 ←

14:52:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:52:23 <IlkayAltintas> 0

Ilkay Altintas: 0 ←

14:52:25 <Deborah> +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1 ←

14:52:31 <GK2> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

14:53:03 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1 ←

14:53:10 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

14:53:12 <StephenCresswell> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←

14:53:23 <Vinh> +1

Vinh Nguyen: +1 ←

14:53:36 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1 ←

14:53:49 <edsu> +1

Ed Summers: +1 ←

14:53:51 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

14:53:53 <Paulo> +1

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: +1 ←

14:54:06 <Paolo_> +1

Paolo Missier: +1 ←

14:54:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED:  Assertions about time are useful but are optional

RESOLVED: Assertions about time are useful but are optional ←

14:55:32 <SamCoppens> luc: Ordering of events

Luc Moreau: Ordering of events ←

14:56:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:56:47 <SamCoppens> Paolo: it is important to have an understanding of the ordering of events, but it may be left out of the provenance

Paolo Missier: it is important to have an understanding of the ordering of events, but it may be left out of the provenance ←

14:57:09 <Paolo_> S/paolo/Paulo

Paolo Missier: S/paolo/Paulo ←

14:58:44 <GK> (Saying that a resource is used before it is generated is not the same as saying nothing about ordering.)

Graham Klyne: (Saying that a resource is used before it is generated is not the same as saying nothing about ordering.) ←

14:58:59 <Luc> PROPOSED: separate Time from (Event) Ordering

PROPOSED: separate Time from (Event) Ordering ←

14:59:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: what is the reason to include Ordering

Simon Miles: what is the reason to include Ordering ←

14:59:59 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q ←

15:00:24 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+ ←

15:00:28 <Luc> zakim, open the queue

Luc Moreau: zakim, open the queue ←

15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open ←

15:00:42 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau

15:00:47 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+ ←

15:00:47 <Luc> zakim, open the queue

Luc Moreau: zakim, open the queue ←

15:01:01 <Deborah> q?

Deborah McGuinness: q? ←

15:01:07 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q ←

15:01:15 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open ←

15:01:16 <SamCoppens> Luc: it is explanatory

Luc Moreau: it is explanatory ←

15:01:45 <pgroth> akk Paulo

Paul Groth: akk Paulo ←

15:01:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:03:18 <GK> Yes. Not all metadata is provenance (but may still be useful, and provenance should not exclude non-provenance information)

Graham Klyne: Yes. Not all metadata is provenance (but may still be useful, and provenance should not exclude non-provenance information) ←

15:03:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:03:38 <Satya> time dimension is the only criteria differentiating provenance and non-provenance metadata (my 2cs)

Satya Sahoo: time dimension is the only criteria differentiating provenance and non-provenance metadata (my 2cs) ←

15:04:10 <Luc> ack Paulo

Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←

15:04:14 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:04:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:04:31 <IlkayAltintas> -q

Ilkay Altintas: -q ←

15:04:50 <IlkayAltintas> q-\

Ilkay Altintas: q-\ ←

15:04:52 <IlkayAltintas> q-

Ilkay Altintas: q- ←

15:05:32 <SamCoppens> Luc: will ordering of events be considered

Luc Moreau: will ordering of events be considered ←

15:05:33 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:05:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:06:09 <Luc> ack smi

Luc Moreau: ack smi ←

15:06:55 <SamCoppens> SimonM: is this explanatory or a constraint

Simon Miles: is this explanatory or a constraint ←

15:06:56 <Satya> @SimonM It needs to be a constraint

Satya Sahoo: @SimonM It needs to be a constraint ←

15:07:24 <Paulo> time issue 6 would lead us to talk about ccs, csp, temporal logics and dynamic logics among others.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: time ISSUE-6 would lead us to talk about ccs, csp, temporal logics and dynamic logics among others. ←

15:07:36 <smiles> @Satya oh, does it now?

Simon Miles: @Satya oh, does it now? ←

15:09:45 <Satya> @SimonM ;)

Satya Sahoo: @SimonM ;) ←

15:09:51 <Luc> Issue: consider ordering of event in model and semantics

ISSUE: consider ordering of event in model and semantics ←

15:09:51 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-27 - Consider ordering of event in model and semantics ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/27/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-27 - Consider ordering of event in model and semantics ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/27/edit . ←

15:10:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:10:40 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:10:42 <SamCoppens> Agent definition

Agent definition ←

15:10:49 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+ ←

15:10:53 <Luc> Subtopic: Agent

15:10:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:10:58 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:11:06 <Luc> ack pgroth

Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←

15:11:07 <Paolo_> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:11:42 <Satya> q+ respond to Paul

Satya Sahoo: q+ respond to Paul ←

15:11:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:11:56 <Deborah> +1 to paul's view- agents should be able to stand alone

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to paul's view- agents should be able to stand alone ←

15:12:02 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents just being able to exist in provenance description. Agents should be able to stand alone

Paul Groth: Agents just being able to exist in provenance description. Agents should be able to stand alone ←

15:13:10 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents should not always be bound to process execution

Paul Groth: Agents should not always be bound to process execution ←

15:13:13 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←

15:13:44 <SamCoppens> JimMc: Agent is entity that can perform activity, but they must not be bound to activity

James McCusker: Agent is entity that can perform activity, but they must not be bound to activity ←

15:14:01 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed ←

15:14:51 <Luc> ack paolo

Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←

15:14:51 <Satya> @Stephan, JimMc: "Capable of action" is provenance? - hypothetical scenario?

Satya Sahoo: @Stephan, JimMc: "Capable of action" is provenance? - hypothetical scenario? ←

15:15:02 <JimMcCusker> "An Agent is an Entity that can perform activities. Agency can be inferred from the performance of an activity, but is not necessary."

James McCusker: "An Agent is an Entity that can perform activities. Agency can be inferred from the performance of an activity, but is not necessary." ←

15:15:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←

15:15:54 <SamCoppens> Paolo: Agents do not depend on processes. If process execution includes participants, then you could have agents with a specific role related to a process execution

Paolo Missier: Agents do not depend on processes. If process execution includes participants, then you could have agents with a specific role related to a process execution ←

15:15:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:16:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:16:42 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:16:53 <Deborah> so this is just an optional property - that they can but are not required to perform anything.....   so in something like an OWL encoding, there would not be any constraint in the ontology - it would just have a min cardinality 0 on any role associated with hasActivity or something like it

Deborah McGuinness: so this is just an optional property - that they can but are not required to perform anything..... so in something like an OWL encoding, there would not be any constraint in the ontology - it would just have a min cardinality 0 on any role associated with hasActivity or something like it ←

15:17:55 <Deborah> +q

Deborah McGuinness: +q ←

15:17:56 <JimMcCusker> "Capable of action" simply means that they can participate in a process execution. This isn't provenance, but is used in provenance.

James McCusker: "Capable of action" simply means that they can participate in a process execution. This isn't provenance, but is used in provenance. ←

15:18:05 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+ ←

15:18:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:18:48 <Luc> ack respond

Luc Moreau: ack respond ←

15:18:48 <Zakim> respond, you wanted to Paul

Zakim IRC Bot: respond, you wanted to Paul ←

15:19:00 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:19:17 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+ ←

15:19:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:20:11 <SamCoppens> Satya: agent is defined in respect to process execution

Satya Sahoo: agent is defined in respect to process execution ←

15:20:18 <tlebo> Isn't "Paul" and "Paul at MIT" just Entities being described in a BOB?

Timothy Lebo: Isn't "Paul" and "Paul at MIT" just Entities being described in a BOB? ←

15:20:22 <zednik> What do we gain from differentiating paul the agent from paul the person?

Stephan Zednik: What do we gain from differentiating paul the agent from paul the person? ←

15:20:23 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:21:10 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:21:53 <SamCoppens> Khalid: is Agent entity or Bob

Khalid Belhajjame: is Agent entity or Bob ←

15:22:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:22:44 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal ←

15:23:11 <Luc> ack Debo

Luc Moreau: ack Debo ←

15:23:15 <Deborah> Agent is a class One can be stated to be an agent COMPLETELY independent of performing any action or participating in any activity.  (supporting Paul’s statement). Independently there may be potentially multiple sufficient conditions for membership in the class  agent. One such example of a sufficient condition for membership in the class agent:  If something performs an particular kinds of activities (such as a process execution), then it will be inferred to

Deborah McGuinness: Agent is a class One can be stated to be an agent COMPLETELY independent of performing any action or participating in any activity. (supporting Paul’s statement). Independently there may be potentially multiple sufficient conditions for membership in the class agent. One such example of a sufficient condition for membership in the class agent: If something performs an particular kinds of activities (such as a process execution), then it will be inferred to ←

15:23:15 <JimMcCusker> Do you lose agency when you finish a process execution?

James McCusker: Do you lose agency when you finish a process execution? ←

15:24:29 <GK> To the extent that an agent/agency is part of the provenance record, I think its "agency" (with respect to a given BOB) should be enduring.

Graham Klyne: To the extent that an agent/agency is part of the provenance record, I think its "agency" (with respect to a given BOB) should be enduring. ←

15:24:39 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:25:04 <SamCoppens> Deborah: agents can be inferred from a process execution, but they can also exist on their own

Deborah McGuinness: agents can be inferred from a process execution, but they can also exist on their own ←

15:25:09 <Luc> ack paulo

Luc Moreau: ack paulo ←

15:25:16 <JimMcCusker> +1 to deborah's proposal

James McCusker: +1 to deborah's proposal ←

15:26:35 <Paolo_> +1 to deb's def

Paolo Missier: +1 to deb's def ←

15:26:57 <zednik> EntityState could be valid for an interval

Stephan Zednik: EntityState could be valid for an interval ←

15:26:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:27:00 <JimMcCusker> Isn't an assertion (verb) a kind of action? I don't see how you can assert an action, except to state that it happened.

James McCusker: Isn't an assertion (verb) a kind of action? I don't see how you can assert an action, except to state that it happened. ←

15:27:50 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent a something that can assert things, asserting being an action.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Agent a something that can assert things, asserting being an action. ←

15:27:54 <Luc> ack zedn

Luc Moreau: ack zedn ←

15:28:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:28:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:28:38 <tlebo> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

Timothy Lebo: +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time. ←

15:28:51 <JimMcCusker> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

James McCusker: +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time. ←

15:29:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:29:19 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+ ←

15:29:33 <SamCoppens> StephanZ: Agent is an entity state

Stephan Zednik: Agent is an entity state ←

15:29:34 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

15:29:39 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←

15:31:02 <zednik> clarification \: if agent status is dependent on process execution, then agent would seem (to me) to be an entity state - BUT most communities have not taken this path in using the term agent

Stephan Zednik: clarification \: if agent status is dependent on process execution, then agent would seem (to me) to be an entity state - BUT most communities have not taken this path in using the term agent ←

15:31:37 <zednik> clarification \: so I think for clarity and synergy with existing terminologies it would be easier to use Deborah's definition of agent

Stephan Zednik: clarification \: so I think for clarity and synergy with existing terminologies it would be easier to use Deborah's definition of agent ←

15:31:51 <tlebo> +1 assertion is an event that produces a BOB

Timothy Lebo: +1 assertion is an event that produces a BOB ←

15:32:06 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q? ←

15:32:53 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro ←

15:33:13 <Satya> @PaulG: is an asserter an agent?

Satya Sahoo: @PaulG: is an asserter an agent? ←

15:34:31 <zednik> if an agent is an entity than it would naturally have an entitystate

Stephan Zednik: if an agent is an entity than it would naturally have an entitystate ←

15:34:48 <Luc> ack smil

Luc Moreau: ack smil ←

15:35:09 <SamCoppens> PaulG: agent is an entity capable of activity, it can be asserted to be an agent or it can be inferred from a process exectution. Introducing Agent State

Paul Groth: agent is an entity capable of activity, it can be asserted to be an agent or it can be inferred from a process exectution. Introducing Agent State ←

15:35:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: Agent is Entity state, with invariant properties

Simon Miles: Agent is Entity state, with invariant properties ←

15:36:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:36:43 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:36:48 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q ←

15:36:51 <SamCoppens> SimonM: must Agent be included into the model

Simon Miles: must Agent be included into the model ←

15:36:58 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

15:37:17 <zednik> audio is very quiet

Stephan Zednik: audio is very quiet ←

15:37:28 <SamCoppens> SimonM: defining Agent in the model, can make it problematic to link to e.g. foaf:Agent, dcterms:Agent

Simon Miles: defining Agent in the model, can make it problematic to link to e.g. foaf:Agent, dcterms:Agent ←

15:38:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:38:26 <SamCoppens> Khalid: Agent can be involved in multiple process exections, which can be exectuted in overlapping time intervals

Khalid Belhajjame: Agent can be involved in multiple process exections, which can be exectuted in overlapping time intervals ←

15:38:29 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal ←

15:38:35 <pgroth> I think I've been convinced that agent = entity state

Paul Groth: I think I've been convinced that agent = entity state ←

15:38:54 <pgroth> the point is that state keeps having this connotation of moment

Paul Groth: the point is that state keeps having this connotation of moment ←

15:38:59 <SamCoppens> Khalid: this would entity states with overlapping time intervals

Khalid Belhajjame: this would entity states with overlapping time intervals ←

15:39:02 <pgroth> which clearly it's not

Paul Groth: which clearly it's not ←

15:39:35 <JimMcCusker> Still not convinced that agent = entity state. State is not the thing itself.

James McCusker: Still not convinced that agent = entity state. State is not the thing itself. ←

15:39:38 <Luc> ack paulo

Luc Moreau: ack paulo ←

15:40:21 <pgroth> @Jim - but you agree that agents have a fixed property right? (their being an agent)

Paul Groth: @Jim - but you agree that agents have a fixed property right? (their being an agent) ←

15:40:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:41:15 <JimMcCusker> @Paul, yes, but a description of that state is not the entity itself.

James McCusker: @Paul, yes, but a description of that state is not the entity itself. ←

15:41:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:41:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:41:53 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent as en entity because e.g. trust is related to entities (agent) not entity states (agent states)

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Agent as en entity because e.g. trust is related to entities (agent) not entity states (agent states) ←

15:42:22 <zednik> @Jim, so how do (or should) we say that an entity is an agent for a given interval associated to an entity state?

Stephan Zednik: @Jim, so how do (or should) we say that an entity is an agent for a given interval associated to an entity state? ←

15:42:32 <JimMcCusker> And as Paulo is discussing, it would be important to be able to say that my FOAF identity is me, and then the AgentState is the reference to my identity PLUS contextualization.

James McCusker: And as Paulo is discussing, it would be important to be able to say that my FOAF identity is me, and then the AgentState is the reference to my identity PLUS contextualization. ←

15:42:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:34 <Deborah> one of paulo's points was that if we have an agent as a subclass of entity state rather than entity, it is problematic to model a number of things including reputation

Deborah McGuinness: one of paulo's points was that if we have an agent as a subclass of entity state rather than entity, it is problematic to model a number of things including reputation ←

15:42:40 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+ ←

15:43:35 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agent is bob, but it does not mean it cannot have a lifetime

Paul Groth: Agent is bob, but it does not mean it cannot have a lifetime ←

15:43:37 <Luc> ack Ilk

Luc Moreau: ack Ilk ←

15:43:59 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+ ←

15:44:24 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:44:31 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agent in the context of bob is a role

Ilkay Altintas: Agent in the context of bob is a role ←

15:44:37 <smiles> q-

Simon Miles: q- ←

15:45:06 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agents as an entity, its roles as a bob in the context of provenance

Ilkay Altintas: Agents as an entity, its roles as a bob in the context of provenance ←

15:45:15 <Luc> ack Sat

Luc Moreau: ack Sat ←

15:45:53 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:49:17 <YolandaGil> I am wondering why we need to state that a participant in a process is an agent.  Why do we need to distinguish other participants from the "agents" in a process?  I think we only care if we want to ask for accoutability, if so we should have that term in the definition of agent.

Yolanda Gil: I am wondering why we need to state that a participant in a process is an agent. Why do we need to distinguish other participants from the "agents" in a process? I think we only care if we want to ask for accoutability, if so we should have that term in the definition of agent. ←

15:50:08 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:51:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:52:25 <Luc> ack  Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←

15:54:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: An agent is a SOMETHING (TBD) capable of activity.  It can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred  to be an agent by involvement in a process execution.

PROPOSED: An agent is a SOMETHING (TBD) capable of activity. It can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred to be an agent by involvement in a process execution. ←

15:54:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:54:55 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1 ←

15:55:04 <smiles> 0 (if we have to define it, this is good; I still believe it will lead less problems to exclude it from the model and let others use their own agency concepts)

Simon Miles: 0 (if we have to define it, this is good; I still believe it will lead less problems to exclude it from the model and let others use their own agency concepts) ←

15:55:31 <YolandaGil> I agree with Simon's comment!

Yolanda Gil: I agree with Simon's comment! ←

15:56:19 <SamCoppens> Paulo: is *asserting* a process execution? If so, asserters are agents, otherwise not.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: is *asserting* a process execution? If so, asserters are agents, otherwise not. ←

15:56:49 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:56:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:57:02 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1 ←

15:57:06 <Paulo> -1

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: -1 ←

15:57:07 <SamCoppens> +1

+1 ←

15:57:07 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1 ←

15:57:09 <IlkayAltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1 ←

15:57:09 <JimMcCusker> @smiles: If we push "Agent" off of BOB to something else, then we can express agency indirectly and let other ontologies address it.

James McCusker: @smiles: If we push "Agent" off of BOB to something else, then we can express agency indirectly and let other ontologies address it. ←

15:57:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:57:25 <Paolo_> +1

Paolo Missier: +1 ←

15:57:26 <Deborah> possibly at least 2 things need to be addressed in followon to this - what is something ?  should we refine "involvement in a process execution"?  and is it related to assertion?

Deborah McGuinness: possibly at least 2 things need to be addressed in followon to this - what is something ? should we refine "involvement in a process execution"? and is it related to assertion? ←

15:57:39 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:57:43 <tlebo> 0 concern about "involvement" not being "agency enough"

Timothy Lebo: 0 concern about "involvement" not being "agency enough" ←

15:57:56 <YolandaGil> 0 for the same reason as Simon

Yolanda Gil: 0 for the same reason as Simon ←

15:58:06 <zednik> involvement -> participation?

Stephan Zednik: involvement -> participation? ←

15:58:16 <GK2> +0.5 (I think I agree, but don't know enough to be sure)

Graham Klyne: +0.5 (I think I agree, but don't know enough to be sure) ←

15:58:26 <JimMcCusker> @tlebo: involvement can be role-based, which would clarify what kind of agency.

James McCusker: @tlebo: involvement can be role-based, which would clarify what kind of agency. ←

15:58:26 <tlebo> (paulo hit me, we're both involved but Paulo was the agent and not me)

Timothy Lebo: (paulo hit me, we're both involved but Paulo was the agent and not me) ←

15:58:28 <Deborah> 0 also because we may want more refinement on "involvement"

Deborah McGuinness: 0 also because we may want more refinement on "involvement" ←

15:58:42 <zednik> change vote to 0 for same reasons as tim and deborah

Stephan Zednik: change vote to 0 for same reasons as tim and deborah ←

15:58:51 <Satya> +1 for involvement -> participation

Satya Sahoo: +1 for involvement -> participation ←

15:59:07 <GK2> I'm assuming it will be useful in provenance record to say things like "Dr Spock collected this dataset"

Graham Klyne: I'm assuming it will be useful in provenance record to say things like "Dr Spock collected this dataset" ←

15:59:28 <GK2> (My experience w/scientists suggests this is v important to them)

Graham Klyne: (My experience w/scientists suggests this is v important to them) ←

15:59:33 <JimMcCusker> Actually, @tlebo, I think @Paulo was the only agent. You had your BOB changed to a new one. He hit you in your BOB.

James McCusker: Actually, @tlebo, I think @Paulo was the only agent. You had your BOB changed to a new one. He hit you in your BOB. ←

15:59:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:59:55 <JimMcCusker> +1 for involvement -> participation

James McCusker: +1 for involvement -> participation ←

15:59:58 <Paulo> An agent can be involved with a process execution and if the process execution is an assertion that the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: An agent can be involved with a process execution and if the process execution is an assertion that the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution. ←

16:00:09 <smiles> q-

Simon Miles: q- ←

16:02:18 <Deborah> discussion point - is an assertion a type of process execution?

Deborah McGuinness: discussion point - is an assertion a type of process execution? ←

16:02:25 <Luc> if the process execution is an assertion, then  the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

Luc Moreau: if the process execution is an assertion, then the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution. ←

16:02:49 <GK2> @Paolo, who do you suggest this cannot be incorprated later?

Graham Klyne: @Paolo, why do you suggest this cannot be incorprated later? ←

16:02:55 <GK2> s/who/why/

16:03:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:03:21 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

16:03:25 <tlebo> roled involvements in a process execution: Tim is punch victim, Paulo is puncher (in another example: Paulo is asserter)

Timothy Lebo: roled involvements in a process execution: Tim is punch victim, Paulo is puncher (in another example: Paulo is asserter) ←

16:05:21 <Luc> Action to smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

Luc Moreau: Action to smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent ←

16:05:21 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to ←

16:05:53 <Luc> Action: smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

ACTION: smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent ←

16:05:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-17 - Explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:06:28 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

ACTION: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter ←

16:06:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-18 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:07:18 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

ACTION: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter ←

16:07:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-19 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:07:53 <Luc> action: zednik to reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement

ACTION: zednik to reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement ←

16:07:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-20 - Reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:07:54 <YolandaGil> @tlebo: Remember our process is generating a bob, so we already implicitly identifying one of the participants as having a special status.  Your example I find is right but agency there is domain specific.  I'd rather keep the model as lean as possible.

Yolanda Gil: @tlebo: Remember our process is generating a bob, so we already implicitly identifying one of the participants as having a special status. Your example I find is right but agency there is domain specific. I'd rather keep the model as lean as possible. ←

16:08:31 <Luc> action: jimmckcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmckcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:08:31 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmckcusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmckcusker ←

16:08:46 <Luc> action: jimmcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:08:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmcusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmcusker ←

16:09:00 <Luc> action: jimmccusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmccusker to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:09:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmccusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmccusker ←

16:09:21 <JimMcCusker> <- This is my handle

James McCusker: <- This is my handle ←

16:09:33 <Luc> action:  JimMcCusker  to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: JimMcCusker to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:09:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMcCusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMcCusker ←

16:09:48 <sandro> trackbot, list users

Sandro Hawke: trackbot, list users ←

16:09:48 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←

16:10:03 <sandro> action: Jim  to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:10:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim ←

16:10:11 <sandro> action: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:10:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim ←

16:10:20 <Luc> action:  smiles  to provide justification for why agent is entity state

ACTION: smiles to provide justification for why agent is entity state ←

16:10:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 -  to provide justification for why agent is entity state [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-21 - to provide justification for why agent is entity state [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:10:38 <Luc> subtopic: IVP of

16:10:57 <sandro> action: James to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: James to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:10:57 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - James

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - James ←

16:10:57 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jcheney, jmyers4, jfrew, jmccuske)

Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jcheney, jmyers4, jfrew, jmccuske) ←

16:11:28 <sandro> action: jmccuske to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jmccuske to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:11:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Provide justification for why agent is entity [on James McCusker - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-22 - Provide justification for why agent is entity [on James McCusker - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:12:32 <sandro> action: jimmc to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmc to provide justification for why agent is entity ←

16:12:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmc

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmc ←

16:13:49 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

16:13:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:14:01 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

16:14:02 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+ ←

16:14:07 <Luc> ack Paulo

Luc Moreau: ack Paulo ←

16:14:11 <Luc> ack smiles

Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←

16:14:16 <GK2> Is there anything I can look at online to see this reviewed definition?

Graham Klyne: Is there anything I can look at online to see this reviewed definition? ←

16:14:47 <GK2> Ah, the webcam's back :)

Graham Klyne: Ah, the webcam's back :) ←

16:15:20 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:15:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:16:17 <jcheney> @GK2: revised defn is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of

James Cheney: @GK2: revised defn is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of ←

16:16:18 <GK2> I'm uncomfortable about defining invariant perspective in terms of properties... I suppose it works from a DL perspective, but I think of it more like a contextual constraint.

Graham Klyne: I'm uncomfortable about defining invariant perspective in terms of properties... I suppose it works from a DL perspective, but I think of it more like a contextual constraint. ←

16:17:14 <JimMcCusker> For reference:

James McCusker: For reference: ←

16:17:45 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, for reference http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9752413/abstractionInProvenance.pdf

James McCusker: Sorry, for reference http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9752413/abstractionInProvenance.pdf ←

16:18:29 <Satya> Khalid: The two points regarding properties of IVP entities is not enough for ensuring consistency

Khalid Belhajjame: The two points regarding properties of IVP entities is not enough for ensuring consistency [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←

16:18:43 <Zakim> -[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←

16:19:20 <Satya> Luc: Consistency is responsibility of asserter (outside PIL scope)

Luc Moreau: Consistency is responsibility of asserter (outside PIL scope) [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←

16:19:24 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: thanks

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: @JimMcCusker: thanks ←

16:20:08 <JimMcCusker> One change from previous discussions: Work in FRBR (I think) corresponds to Entity in PIL.

James McCusker: One change from previous discussions: Work in FRBR (I think) corresponds to Entity in PIL. ←

16:20:40 <GK2> I don't think FRBR patterns help here

Graham Klyne: I don't think FRBR patterns help here ←

16:20:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:20:59 <zednik> @Jim, I think FRBR:Entity corresponds to PIL:Entity

Stephan Zednik: @Jim, I think FRBR:Entity corresponds to PIL:Entity ←

16:21:54 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: One issue with your last statement is that it may be a work of God

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: @JimMcCusker: One issue with your last statement is that it may be a work of God ←

16:22:33 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

16:22:39 <Luc> ack khali

Luc Moreau: ack khali ←

16:23:23 <GK> I don't  agree that BOBs are manifestations/expressions to resource/subject as Work

Graham Klyne: I don't agree that BOBs are manifestations/expressions to resource/subject as Work ←

16:23:27 <Satya> JimMc: current definition of IVP satisfies scenario in FRBR

James McCusker: current definition of IVP satisfies scenario in FRBR [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←

16:23:32 <SamCoppens> JimMc: referenced document justifies the proposed definition

James McCusker: referenced document justifies the proposed definition ←

16:23:39 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+ ←

16:23:56 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim ←

16:24:08 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro ←

16:24:40 <GK> I think a BOB is essentially the same kind of thing as the original resource, but constrained in some way so that certain assertions are enduringly true where they would not be so for the original.  E.g. in a particular period or place.

Graham Klyne: I think a BOB is essentially the same kind of thing as the original resource, but constrained in some way so that certain assertions are enduringly true where they would not be so for the original. E.g. in a particular period or place. ←

16:25:04 <zednik> @GK, I agree, think ownership of a physical object

Stephan Zednik: @GK, I agree, think ownership of a physical object ←

16:25:05 <Satya> PaulG: Why should two entities participating in IVP need to share properties (?)

Paul Groth: Why should two entities participating in IVP need to share properties (?) [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←

16:25:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:25:21 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

16:25:32 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 I agree with Paul

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 I agree with Paul ←

16:25:32 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Role of IVP is to relate entity states, declaring they are the same

Paul Groth: Role of IVP is to relate entity states, declaring they are the same ←

16:25:58 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:26:01 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Why need additional contraints

Paul Groth: Why need additional contraints ←

16:26:04 <Luc> ack zednik

Luc Moreau: ack zednik ←

16:26:06 <JimMcCusker> +1 to @pgroth's point.

James McCusker: +1 to @pgroth's point. ←

16:26:55 <GK> Nice example.

Graham Klyne: Nice example. ←

16:27:04 <SamCoppens> Stephen: disagree with Work in FRBR corresponds to Entity in PIL

Stephen Cresswell: disagree with Work in FRBR corresponds to Entity in PIL ←

16:27:06 <Deborah> +1 for paul's comment - about 1 - why do we need to require the additional constraints  and 2 I would like to be able to say that A and B can replace each other (possibly for a given context)

Deborah McGuinness: +1 for paul's comment - about 1 - why do we need to require the additional constraints and 2 I would like to be able to say that A and B can replace each other (possibly for a given context) ←

16:27:21 <tlebo> zednik: the owner history of a book. The book is an Entity. The book owned by different owners over time are different EntityStates.

Stephan Zednik: the owner history of a book. The book is an Entity. The book owned by different owners over time are different EntityStates. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←

16:27:22 <GK> (Nice example = book changing ownership.)

Graham Klyne: (Nice example = book changing ownership.) ←

16:27:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:27:59 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:28:09 <Luc> ack jcheney

Luc Moreau: ack jcheney ←

16:28:34 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:28:53 <JimMcCusker> I guess any level in FRBR can be considered an Entity in itself, and then there are IPV relations between any if their entity states.

James McCusker: I guess any level in FRBR can be considered an Entity in itself, and then there are IPV relations between any if their entity states. ←

16:29:06 <zednik> @Jim - I agree

Stephan Zednik: @Jim - I agree ←

16:29:17 <GK> @jim +1

Graham Klyne: @jim +1 ←

16:29:22 <JimMcCusker> Good thing I didn't change the PDF, then. :-)

James McCusker: Good thing I didn't change the PDF, then. :-) ←

16:29:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:30:09 <Luc> ack smiles

Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←

16:30:38 <GK> @smiles +1 entities (turtles) all the way down

Graham Klyne: @smiles +1 entities (turtles) all the way down ←

16:31:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

16:32:32 <JimMcCusker> Deborah, Tim, and I all represent RPI. :-)

James McCusker: Deborah, Tim, and I all represent RPI. :-) ←

16:33:03 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro ←

16:34:24 <Luc> issue: we need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity

ISSUE: we need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ←

16:34:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-28 - We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28/edit . ←

16:34:40 <Deborah> and do we want to refine that for a particular purpose?

Deborah McGuinness: and do we want to refine that for a particular purpose? ←

16:35:33 <GK> When A is an IVP of B, assertions that are enduringly true of B are also enduringly true of A.  Further there may be some additional assertions  that are only transiently true of B  but are enduringly true of A.

Graham Klyne: When A is an IVP of B, assertions that are enduringly true of B are also enduringly true of A. Further there may be some additional assertions that are only transiently true of B but are enduringly true of A. ←

16:35:48 <pgroth> @GK you like enduring truth don't you :-)

Paul Groth: @GK you like enduring truth don't you :-) ←

16:36:02 <Luc> action: zednik to formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book)

ACTION: zednik to formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) ←

16:36:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-23 - Formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:36:29 <GK> @pgroth - I suppose :)  -- I think it is (close to) something that is key to provenance vs other metadata.

Graham Klyne: @pgroth - I suppose :) -- I think it is (close to) something that is key to provenance vs other metadata. ←

16:37:03 <smiles> @GK definitely agreed - coz what has happened has happened

Simon Miles: @GK definitely agreed - coz what has happened has happened ←

16:37:52 <Luc> action: smiles to clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities)

ACTION: smiles to clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) ←

16:37:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-24 - Clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:38:22 <zednik> do we have a distinction between IVP and EntityState?

Stephan Zednik: do we have a distinction between IVP and EntityState? ←

16:38:28 <tlebo> @smiles, if it's not about sameness of entities, what is IVP about?

Timothy Lebo: @smiles, if it's not about sameness of entities, what is IVP about? ←

16:39:04 <Luc> action to pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28

Luc Moreau: action to pgroth to formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28 ←

16:39:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to ←

16:39:18 <JimMcCusker> action pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28

James McCusker: action pgroth to formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28 ←

16:39:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Formulate a mechanism for issue-28 [on Paul Groth - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-25 - Formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28 [on Paul Groth - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:39:22 <smiles> @tlebo it is about relation between what is invariant about one bob and what is invariant about another - specifically that if one is the subset of another, then the provenance of one includes the provenance of another

Simon Miles: @tlebo it is about relation between what is invariant about one bob and what is invariant about another - specifically that if one is the subset of another, then the provenance of one includes the provenance of another ←

16:39:43 <GK> (Maybe "enduring truth" -> "invariant truth")

Graham Klyne: (Maybe "enduring truth" -> "invariant truth") ←

16:39:44 <Satya> @zednick - exactly the question I wanted to ask

Satya Sahoo: @zednick - exactly the question I wanted to ask ←

16:40:20 <GK> "tlebo - problem is that sameness can be hard to pin down, so appealing to it creates problem.  At some intuitive level, there is a degree of sameness.

Graham Klyne: "tlebo - problem is that sameness can be hard to pin down, so appealing to it creates problem. At some intuitive level, there is a degree of sameness. ←

16:41:05 <pgroth> @zednick @Satya - yes absolutely, entity state is just a way to identify entities through some invariant properties, no?

Paul Groth: @zednick @Satya - yes absolutely, entity state is just a way to identify entities through some invariant properties, no? ←

16:41:06 <GK> "corerespondence" assumes discrete properties to refer to.  This is why I prefer definition in terms of assertions rather than interms of properties.

Graham Klyne: "corerespondence" assumes discrete properties to refer to. This is why I prefer definition in terms of assertions rather than interms of properties. ←

16:41:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:42:00 <GK> @pgroth the way we use it, yes, but I worry about implications of "state"

Graham Klyne: @pgroth the way we use it, yes, but I worry about implications of "state" ←

16:42:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:42:08 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya ←

16:42:47 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

16:42:51 <GK> For example, some models of "state" are strictly sequential, and invariants are not necessarily sequentially related.

Graham Klyne: For example, some models of "state" are strictly sequential, and invariants are not necessarily sequentially related. ←

16:43:30 <smiles> @GK I find a problem with defining in terms of assertions - in that it is not the assertions which need invariance. I agree that properties are invariant to some perspective/for some asserter.

Simon Miles: @GK I find a problem with defining in terms of assertions - in that it is not the assertions which need invariance. I agree that properties are invariant to some perspective/for some asserter. ←

16:44:42 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

16:45:23 <Satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q- ←

16:45:27 <tlebo> what does IVP provide that doesn't fall out of overlapping descriptions of multiple EntityStates?

Timothy Lebo: what does IVP provide that doesn't fall out of overlapping descriptions of multiple EntityStates? ←

16:45:32 <Luc> action: satya to comment on future definitions of ivp of

ACTION: satya to comment on future definitions of ivp of ←

16:45:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-26 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:45:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:45:48 <GK> @smiles, I can live with properties, as that's what we generally deal with in Web descriptions.  But philosophically, I feel assertions are more fundamental.  (I think Quine wrote something about this.)

Graham Klyne: @smiles, I can live with properties, as that's what we generally deal with in Web descriptions. But philosophically, I feel assertions are more fundamental. (I think Quine wrote something about this.) ←

16:46:17 <zednik> @tlebo agreed, is there a constraint that an entity may only have one defined entitystate at a time?

Stephan Zednik: @tlebo agreed, is there a constraint that an entity may only have one defined entitystate at a time? ←

16:46:41 <tlebo> to be continue :-)

Timothy Lebo: to be continue :-) ←

16:46:44 <pgroth> @zednik I don't think so --- well it doesn't say it

Paul Groth: @zednik I don't think so --- well it doesn't say it ←

16:46:45 <zednik> :)

Stephan Zednik: :) ←

16:46:45 <tlebo> d

Timothy Lebo: d ←

16:46:49 <Luc> action: khalid to comment on future definitions of ivp of

ACTION: khalid to comment on future definitions of ivp of ←

16:46:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Khalid Belhajjame - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-27 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Khalid Belhajjame - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:46:53 <pgroth> anyway, lunch time!

Paul Groth: anyway, lunch time! ←

16:47:01 <GK> OK -- that's me done here for the day.  I need to be elsewhere very soon, so good luck with the rest of the meeting.

Graham Klyne: OK -- that's me done here for the day. I need to be elsewhere very soon, so good luck with the rest of the meeting. ←

16:47:02 <pgroth> back at 1:30pm EST

Paul Groth: back at 1:30pm EST ←

16:47:09 <pgroth> Thanks GK!!

Paul Groth: Thanks GK!! ←

16:47:21 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←

16:47:41 <Luc> action: jamesM to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

ACTION: jamesM to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 ←

16:47:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jamesM

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jamesM ←

16:47:57 <Luc> action: myers to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

ACTION: myers to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 ←

16:47:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 [on James Myers - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-28 - Revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 [on James Myers - due 2011-07-14]. ←

16:48:54 <GK> (Watching Luc stretch on webcam is amusing - looks a bit robo-pop)

Graham Klyne: (Watching Luc stretch on webcam is amusing - looks a bit robo-pop) ←

16:50:23 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←

17:32:01 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth, luc

17:33:36 <Zakim> +??P3

(No events recorded for 43 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←

17:33:48 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik ←

17:33:49 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←

17:33:49 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←

17:35:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, who is here?

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, who is here? ←

17:35:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, dgarijo, zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, dgarijo, zednik ←

17:35:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, IlkayAltintas, Yogesh, edsu, zednik, Satya, Paulo, GK2, JimMcCusker, Vinh, smiles, jcheney, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, IlkayAltintas, Yogesh, edsu, zednik, Satya, Paulo, GK2, JimMcCusker, Vinh, smiles, jcheney, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, ←

17:35:24 <Zakim> ... ericP, stain, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... ericP, stain, sandro, trackbot ←

17:36:34 <Luc> Scribe: Satya Sahoo

(Scribe set to Satya Sahoo)

12:49:18 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 7: PAQ TF

<pgroth> Summary: In this session, a plan for developing an access document was developed and a mechanism for helping to decide upon proposals was agreed upon. It was agreed to start with Graham's document as a starting point and to raise issues against that document once it was transferred to the W3C version control system. In order to evaluate various proposals, a use case scenario at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario was agreed upon.

17:38:01 <Satya> SimonM: Reconcile the PAQTF proposals - review and document the issues

17:38:44 <tlebo> smiles: will need to enumerate requirements.

17:39:02 <Satya> SimonM: Requirements for the proposals should include reasons

17:39:29 <pgroth> q?

17:39:30 <tlebo> smiles: 1) plan for document and 2) proposals stating their requirements and why important.

17:39:33 <khalidbelhajjame> -q

17:40:21 <Satya> Yogesh: Need to discuss the metrics or guidelines for defining the proposals and the reasons associated with the proposals

17:40:41 <tlebo> yogesh: metrics would be used to evaluate each proposal.

17:40:45 <Luc> q+

17:40:57 <pgroth> ack Luc

17:41:06 <pgroth> q?

17:41:58 <Satya> Luc: Consider a scenario to identify the requirements

17:42:07 <tlebo> luc: example scenarios to support. e.g. getting something over email and browsing the web

17:43:41 <Satya> PaulG: The proposals are not too distinct and can be reconciled easily

17:44:21 <Satya> PaulG: Disagreements demonstrated with specific examples for given proposal

17:45:50 <pgroth> q?

17:45:53 <Satya> PaulG: Should start requirement gathering

17:46:05 <Satya> Should > should not

17:46:31 <Satya> SimonM: requirement gathering is in specific context of proposal

17:46:43 <Luc> q?

17:46:54 <Satya> Sandro: focus should be on use cases, which lead to indentification of requirements

17:46:59 <Satya> q+

17:47:08 <dgarijo> don't we have already a lot of requirements from the incubator?

17:48:13 <SamCoppens> @dgarijo indeed and they were gathered from the use cases

17:49:21 <Luc> Consider the following scenario. A user gains access to an online resource through browsing the web and downloading it, by receiving by email, transferring it via FTP, or by some other protocol. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the resource will be retrieved and displayed. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and w

17:49:34 <Satya> q-

17:51:02 <pgroth> q?

17:52:39 <Satya> PaulG: A document is created that receives comments/raise issue against the document

17:52:57 <Satya> SimonM: Graham has already created such a document

17:53:51 <Satya> Yogesh: Should the document include all proposals or one proposal?

17:54:12 <pgroth> q?

17:54:55 <Luc> q+ can we agree to on the scenario to support

17:55:22 <Satya> Paul/SimonM: Graham's proposal may be used as starting point

17:55:36 <Satya> Luc: Define a scenario today?

17:56:23 <pgroth> q?

17:56:48 <Luc> A user obtains an html document. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the document will be retrieved and displayed. Provenance is retrieved from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and where does that information come from?  We should consider that the htm

17:57:28 <GK2> I really have to go soon, but I notuce Simon mentioned something I drafted as an example: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html

17:57:42 <dgarijo> @GK2 thanks!

17:57:56 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

17:58:00 <GK2> The point was to use something like this as a focus for discussion, throw out stuff we don't want, add stuff we need, etc.

17:58:05 <Satya> Try and agree on a scenario for use by the PAQ TF

17:58:43 <GK2> (It uses ReSpec - seems to require browser console to fully geberate ToC -- dunno why)

17:59:39 <Satya> Luc: A specific example initially - html document

18:00:15 <pgroth> q?

18:00:19 <IlkayAltintas> q+

18:00:30 <sandro> q+

18:00:33 <Satya> Luc: Describes the provenance access scenario

18:01:18 <Satya> SimonM: If link is embedded in the html page, may not have to cover http-related issues (?)

18:01:43 <Satya> Ilkay: Is the content public or requires consideration of access control

18:01:59 <zednik> q+

18:02:43 <pgroth> ack Ilkay

18:02:52 <Satya> SimonM: Mention that provenance available in multiple format

18:03:44 <Satya> Sandro: The scenario should be described without using the term "provenance"

18:03:53 <pgroth> q?

18:03:53 <zednik> q-

18:04:01 <pgroth> ack sandro

18:04:45 <Satya> StephanZ: If we are using http get, then we don't need to explicitly mention access control

18:04:48 <sandro> sandro: It would be very nice, some day, to have this scenario given, without deference to the word "provenance", to explain why this WG is doing such cool stuff.

18:04:52 <Yogesh> q+

18:05:22 <zednik> q-

18:05:26 <Satya> simonM: We want consider only proposals and not specific solutions

18:05:41 <pgroth> q?

18:05:45 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

18:05:56 <Satya> Yogesh: Is this provenance w.r.t entire document or parts of the document?

18:06:11 <Satya> SimonM: Will it have impact on the access mechanism?

18:06:18 <pgroth> q?

18:06:43 <Luc> q+

18:06:55 <Paulo> q+

18:07:02 <Satya> q+

18:07:09 <pgroth> ack Luc

18:07:37 <sandro> q+

18:07:47 <IlkayAltintas> q+

18:07:56 <sandro> q-

18:08:00 <jcheney> q+

18:08:01 <Satya> Luc: We should review the scenario bullet points and leave the issues for later discussion

18:08:30 <pgroth> ack Paulo

18:08:58 <Deborah> +1 to allowing more flexibility on document type

18:09:05 <Satya> Paulo: Consider issue related to visualization of the provenance

18:09:27 <Satya> Paulo: Provenance visualization is not part of "access"

18:09:29 <Deborah> +1 to allowing "oh yeah" functionality BUT not including display of it as part of the scope

18:09:54 <pgroth> q?

18:10:27 <Satya> Luc: We consider only access and not visualization etc.

18:11:05 <Satya> Deborah: Replace "oh yeah" button with "oh yeah" functionality

18:11:15 <JimMcCusker> http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2008-12-24/orly.jpeg

18:11:19 <Satya> Luc: Modified scenario

18:11:26 <dgarijo> :D

18:11:36 <pgroth> q?

18:11:47 <pgroth> ack Satya

18:12:16 <pgroth> q?

18:12:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Satya: Does access have to reconcile information from multiple sources

18:12:36 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: outside of scope

18:13:06 <Paulo> q+

18:14:20 <tlebo> smiles: secure access and formats are "allowed"

18:14:21 <pgroth> ack Ilka

18:14:25 <Yogesh> q+

18:14:33 <zednik> +1 detailing access control is out of scope

18:14:54 <tlebo> ilkayaltintas: is provenance of document different from the scientific data? perhaps same scenario for two different usages?

18:15:20 <Luc> q?

18:15:22 <Luc> q+

18:15:34 <dgarijo> I'm just wondering... Why would you want to publish provenance if you are going to restrict the access to it?

18:15:38 <Deborah> +1 to keeping acces control out of scope of this working group

18:15:56 <tlebo> q?

18:16:07 <Luc> @dgarijo because you may want to have a paying service

18:16:36 <Satya> SimonM: Don't have make it domain specific

18:16:49 <dgarijo> @Luc true.

18:17:09 <Satya> q+ to respond to Ilkay

18:17:25 <pgroth> ack jcheney

18:17:36 <Deborah> what if we change "html document" to web-based document minimally...... i would prefer to have no modifier on document though

18:17:45 <Satya> @ILkay HTML pages and data (on the web) are not necessarily distinct

18:17:53 <tlebo> Can http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario pick up from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample by having it s/A user obtains an html document. /A user obtains an html encoding of art1/ ?

18:18:26 <Luc> q?

18:18:27 <pgroth> q?

18:18:37 <pgroth> ack Paulo

18:18:38 <tlebo> newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1)

18:18:48 <Satya> James Cheney: We can replace html document with only document

18:19:06 <pgroth> q?

18:20:31 <tlebo> q+ to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

18:20:40 <IlkayAltintas> @satya Agreed

18:21:21 <dgarijo> +1 to tlebo's proposal. It would be nice to see how the current approaches adapt to the proposed example.

18:21:54 <Satya> Paulo: Order of provenance documents to be retrieved should be out of scope of WG

18:21:59 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

18:22:16 <Satya> +1 to tlebo proposal

18:22:54 <tlebo> q?

18:23:08 <pgroth> ack tlebo

18:23:08 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart

18:23:11 <Zakim> ... (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

18:23:38 <Satya> Tim: Can we reuse specific entity from journalism example - chart, document, report

18:24:30 <Luc> q?

18:24:38 <Satya> q-

18:25:34 <pgroth> ack Luc

18:25:46 <Satya> Luc: Agrees with Tim, but is concerned that this will require embedding provenance link in the document

18:26:17 <sandro> +1 luc Lets focus on "html document" for now.

18:26:29 <Satya> Luc: Taking the deadline for first document prepared by end of month, need to keep scenario as simple

18:26:39 <Deborah> what if we modify it to "the user obtains a document.  The initial scenario will focus on an html document"

18:27:23 <Satya> Tim: We can pick a single entity from the journalism example

18:27:33 <sandro> Maybe restrict HTML in this example to not be using script or img or object.

18:27:43 <Deborah> q+

18:27:48 <sandro> q+

18:28:18 <sandro> +1 deborah, "initial scenario is html"

18:28:33 <Satya> Deborah: What if we modify scenario to "document" from "html document"

18:28:57 <pgroth> ack sandro

18:29:00 <pgroth> ack Debo

18:29:10 <Satya> Sandro: We don't consider anything to be embedded in the html document

18:30:05 <Satya> Luc: Clarified that this is initial scenario and documented on wiki page

18:30:07 <dgarijo> @Sandro and what about the proposals which propose to embedd provenance in the html?

18:30:19 <dgarijo> +q

18:30:58 <pgroth> ack dgarijo

18:31:32 <Satya> DanielG: Are we going to extend the initial example?

18:31:56 <pgroth> q?

18:32:18 <Satya> PaulG: First point of the scenario is accepted

18:33:45 <Satya> Yogesh: Add retrieval to access (for second point in example)

18:35:22 <pgroth> q?

18:35:55 <Satya> PaulG: Second point accepted with modification

18:36:15 <pgroth> q?

18:36:52 <Deborah> what about  Provenance may be accessed from the document provider as well as from third-parties.

18:37:19 <Deborah> q+

18:37:49 <Luc> q?

18:38:43 <Paulo> q+

18:38:47 <Yogesh> q+

18:38:55 <pgroth> ack Deborah

18:39:13 <Satya> Deborah: Modification to acessibility from multiple sources

18:39:17 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

18:39:24 <pgroth> ack Paulo

18:39:43 <Satya> Yogesh: Defer issue of partial access to after publication of first draft

18:41:45 <Satya> PaulG: Third point is accepted

18:42:35 <Paulo> provenance may be represented as a distributed graph and accessing the graph may imply accessing the graph fully or partially

18:43:08 <Paulo> ... and accessing the provenance my imply accessing the graph...

18:43:17 <Satya> q+

18:44:08 <pgroth> ack Saty

18:44:11 <Yogesh> q+

18:44:58 <IlkayAltintas> q+

18:45:11 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

18:47:35 <Yogesh> q+

18:47:42 <pgroth> ack Ilkay

18:49:29 <pgroth> action: Yogesh to rephrase into user scenario and questions about access

18:49:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Rephrase into user scenario and questions about access [on Yogesh Simmhan - due 2011-07-14].

18:49:33 <pgroth> q?

18:50:41 <Deborah> +1 to satya's point - where it comes from is not part of the access task force.   the form of the query to get the information should be but not where it is from

18:51:27 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

18:52:29 <pgroth> q?

18:54:35 <Satya> PaulG: Point 4 accepted

18:54:49 <pgroth> q?

18:55:30 <Satya> Ilkay: Document can be received in multiple ways

18:56:10 <dgarijo> @Satya. Has it been rephrased finally? (sorry, the quality of the sound isn't pretty good)

18:56:45 <Zakim> +[ISI]

18:57:05 <Satya> @DanielG - the fourth point?

18:57:14 <dgarijo> @Staya yes

18:57:27 <dgarijo> *Satya

18:57:42 <Satya> yes, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

18:57:58 <Satya> @DanielG - we now have two sub points

18:58:38 <dgarijo> @Satya thanks!

19:00:12 <Satya> SimonM: The method of obtaining the document has implication for access

19:00:42 <Satya> Sandro: email based mechanism to obtain document illustrates that document may not have stable URL

19:01:05 <pgroth> q?

19:01:53 <Satya> PaulG: point 5 is accepted

19:02:33 <Satya> Sandro: Email method for obtaining document does not include URL, but may have metadata

19:12:55 <pgroth> q?

19:13:15 <Satya> PaulG: We should consider that provenance providers can make provenance available in different formats

19:13:28 <sandro> maybe...  "Provenance information might, potentially, be allowed to be published/consumed using various different formats and protocols"

19:14:24 <sandro> Paul wants us to consider that the provenance might be provided in a Word Document, identified by content type.

19:14:34 <pgroth> q?

19:14:43 <sandro> (that is, that the same mechanism can be used in many ways.(

19:15:20 <Satya> point 6 modified: "Multiple formats for provenance may be available from the provider or third parties. The "Oh yeah?" feature may want to select which format to retrieve. "

19:15:33 <Satya> PaulG: point 6 accepted

<pgroth> ACCEPTED: To use http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario as a scenario to compare various proposals

19:15:46 <dgarijo> I have to leave. See you!

19:15:53 <Zakim> -dgarijo

19:16:01 <Zakim> -[ISI]

19:16:06 <Zakim> -zednik

19:35:25 <Zakim> +zednik

19:36:16 <Yogesh> smiles: start with GK's document as starting point

19:36:45 <Yogesh> identify ibg issues to resolve. Others who have given proposals to pick holes in it.

19:37:06 <Yogesh> GK's document not in wiki.

19:37:27 <pgroth> action: GK to move his paq document to the w3c site

19:37:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14].

19:38:20 <pgroth> action: smiles to enact the plan for the paq

19:38:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Enact the plan for the paq  [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

19:38:53 <Yogesh> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

14:49:11 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 8: Planning

<pgroth> Summary: Plans for each of the Task Forces were confirmed from other sessions. For the Model Task Force and PAQ Task Force the following process is adopted: each task force will create a draft document in W3C style, issues will then be raised against those documents, those issues will then be iteratively resolved until the public working drafts are due. The documents being produced are  the conceptual model, formal model (i.e. owl ontology), and an initial provenance access document. Additionally, in this session it was decided that the formal model would take the form of a light weight OWL ontology that also is "natural rdf". Finally, it was discussed that we need better connections to the RDF working group to ensure that Named Graphs are properly supported. Sandro will initiate this discussion and we aim to find a member that participates in both working groups to actively convey the Provenance WG's point-of-view in the RDF Working Group.

19:40:08 <Yogesh> pgroth: Model TF document put in W3C style. All open issues to be raised against it.

19:40:38 <pgroth> action: Paolo to make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style

19:40:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style [on Paolo Missier - due 2011-07-14].

19:41:17 <Yogesh> Luc: To start writing a schema. Included as part of Model TF effort.

19:41:44 <Yogesh> PaulG: other two TF's identified their plan yesterday

19:42:22 <jcheney> (Following on IRC from airport; can't get through on Skype.)

19:42:45 <Deborah> I would like to do one in OWL

19:43:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: Not yet talked about designing schema. People responsible for working on schema need to consider rfds, riff, etc. To decide an initial schema language

19:43:00 <pgroth> q?

19:43:02 <Deborah> +1

19:43:36 <Yogesh> smiles: any real objection to using owl?

19:44:11 <Yogesh> sandro: only reason is that there is some "anti-owl".

19:44:38 <Yogesh> Deborah: start with a smaller profile of owl. Not require reasoner. No rule extensions.

19:45:30 <jcheney> As someone who is not anti-OWL but also not familiar with OWL, I hope we can minimize the amount that I (and people with similar background) have to learn...

19:45:39 <Yogesh> pgroth: can we do this in owl and have an rdf-s schema?

19:47:15 <Yogesh> Deborah: start in owl to ensure ontology modeling mindset. But try and use only parts that can map to RDF-S and flag those portions that do not map.

19:47:27 <Yogesh> sandro: is there a tool to flag this difference automatically?

19:48:35 <Yogesh> sandro: we could have full interchange between owl and rdf-s

19:50:26 <Yogesh> pgroth: is there lite weight owl? owl-lite!

19:50:49 <Yogesh> Deborah: write owl-lite in sleep

19:51:37 <Yogesh> Paulo: have been collecting provenance examples. not much reasoning happening.

19:51:44 <sandro> sandro: We can do a big OWL ontology, and people can still use our Provenance Vocab that know and care nothing about that ontology.

19:52:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: most work on pmhas been on cardinalty constraints aand alue restriction

19:53:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: concern about 3 months time constraint

19:53:58 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: scoff has ambiguity

19:54:27 <Luc> s/scoff/skos

19:54:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: enough expertise in the table. learning curve can be addressed.

19:55:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

19:55:13 <Luc> q+

19:55:31 <Yogesh> Deborah: can work on own encoding for initial terminology. attempt to no go beyond owl-lite and simple profilkes of owl2

19:56:12 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: can we start from concepts rather than language? what is the expresiveness required for these concepts?

19:56:44 <Deborah> good point from khalid - from what i have heard, i think we need subclass, subrole, cardinality restrictions, value restrictions

19:56:51 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: even owl may not end up being expressive enough. e.g. specifying mapping, correspondence betwen properties of different entity states

19:56:57 <pgroth> q?

19:57:10 <pgroth> ack kh

19:57:21 <pgroth> ack Luc

19:57:31 <Deborah> agree that ivp may not have all of its constraints (and I am not sure I understand the nuances of ivp)

19:57:45 <Yogesh> Luc: stephen is user of provenance for data.gov.uk. does he have requirement for owl/rdf as a user?

19:58:43 <Yogesh> Stephen: would like to use inference. had to add restrictions into opm.

19:59:27 <Yogesh> Luc: is Stephen happy with owl lite profile as a user?

19:59:38 <Paulo> q+

19:59:48 <Yogesh> Stephen: if it allows us to make the inferences we make, but doubt it will

20:00:16 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: some things best described using swrl rules

20:00:28 <Yogesh> Satya: swrl superceeded by rif

20:00:59 <Yogesh> Stephen: dont expect end user to make inferences.

20:01:16 <Luc> q+

20:01:17 <pgroth> ack Paulo

20:01:36 <Luc> q-

20:01:39 <Yogesh> Paulo: learnt that its difficult to generate consistent provenance

20:02:02 <JimMcCusker> Q=

20:02:04 <Yogesh> Paulo: using just triple store to avoid breaking provenance

20:02:04 <JimMcCusker> q+

20:02:35 <JimMcCusker> q?

20:02:53 <Yogesh> Paulo: nice to have consistent view, but enforcing can cause problems on how provenance is captured and stored

20:03:02 <Yogesh> Satya: ths is about logical consistency

20:03:43 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: catch things that may be wrong vs. expand realm of what is known

20:03:56 <Deborah> Jim mcc tries not to focus on catching inconsistencies but instead on "expanding the realm" using things like hasValue

20:04:11 <Deborah> +q

20:04:18 <pgroth> ack Ji

20:04:33 <pgroth> q+

20:04:37 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: should focus on expanding knowledge than constraining it

20:05:24 <Yogesh> Deborah: focus on maximizing reuse. minimize restrictions, use more general value restrictions. Were using restrictions in our owl model over time.

20:05:45 <Deborah> I also focus on maximizing reuse in my modeling style - thus i err on the side of having weaker restrictions rather than tighter restrictions

20:06:30 <Yogesh> pgroth: only concern is to ensure that when we release first draft in the sem web and linked data groups, the modeling using predicate/objects will be more natural

20:06:33 <Satya> q+

20:06:54 <pgroth> ack Deborah

20:06:56 <Deborah> ? was the "unnaturalness of the RDF serialization" due to the modeling or just the use of RDF?

20:06:57 <Yogesh> pgroth: make things simple to drive adoption

20:07:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth

20:07:10 <JimMcCusker> q+

20:07:14 <GK> [Reviewing] I notice Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14], which I'm happy to accept.  But will need help, as I *really* want the document source to be version-controlled.  I believe W3C site has SCM facilities, but I'd need to know what they are and how to use them.  I have a definite preference for Hg/Git over Svn.   @sandro, can you help with details.

20:07:42 <Yogesh> Luc: i wrote owl, so it seemed unnatural

20:08:45 <Yogesh> Luc: owl that was not readable by humans. Had to reconcile opm-v and opm-o.

20:09:06 <StephenCresswell> +q

20:09:12 <pgroth> ack Sat

20:09:48 <Yogesh> Satya: issue was not about how the owl representation looks like. graph to owl causes n-ary relationships.

20:10:23 <Yogesh> Satya: jun interepreted n-ary relationships as binary to make it compatible with owl

20:10:49 <pgroth> ack Jim

20:11:34 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: n-ary relationships show everywhere i go. But owl2 seems to be able to add annotations to statements (Deborah: yes).

20:11:50 <Yogesh> Satya: no verification in owl2

20:12:05 <Yogesh> reification

20:12:06 <Luc> q?

20:12:08 <Luc> q+

20:12:19 <pgroth> ack Step

20:12:57 <Yogesh> StephenCresswell: opm-o was not readable to humans, but opm-v was. Also, some inferences were more easily doable.

20:13:28 <pgroth> ack Luc

20:13:56 <Yogesh> Luc: we will want named graphs in provenance serialization. will owl route help?

20:14:05 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need graphs, but graph literals

20:14:19 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need *named* graphs, but graph literals

20:14:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: tried to make a persuasive case before. can i come to that call again?

20:15:08 <Yogesh> Luc: need to come up with a usecase for named graphs to convince them

20:15:40 <Yogesh> sandro: groups will review each others drafts. it will be clunky. human overlap between the two groups will be more smooth.

20:16:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: Pat Hayes from rdf WG is an invited expert to facilitate coordination with our group

20:16:45 <Yogesh> sandro: have a joint task force beween two groups?

20:17:04 <Yogesh> Luc: can bring issue up to coord WG as co-chairs

20:17:16 <Yogesh> sandro: quite WGs get ignored

20:17:52 <Yogesh> sandro: will take writeup to rdf WG and will call for backup if i cannot convince

20:18:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: make decision in interest of time?

20:18:47 <Luc> q+

20:19:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: attempt a light weight, usable, natural RDF, easy to write sparql queries?

20:20:04 <Yogesh> Satya: linked open data do not follow schema.

20:20:14 <Yogesh> pgroth: we cant ignore them

20:20:48 <Deborah> I have a clear picture of what lightweight OWL is.  I understand layering issues with respect to reasoning.  I do not have a clear operationalization of what "natural RDF is or easy to write sparql" is

20:21:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: design schema with a thought to the instance data being simple

20:21:08 <Luc> q+ to document provenance feature requirements in terms of OWL profiles

20:22:03 <Yogesh> Luc: provenance features: reasoning over transitive closure, event order, time, prov statements being compatible, etc. People working on schema need to document these features

20:22:39 <Yogesh> Tim: can help with readability

20:23:16 <Yogesh> Stephen: natural => graph on whiteboard is same as rdf graph

20:23:19 <Zakim> -zednik

20:23:23 <Deborah> +1

20:23:58 <Zakim> +zednik

20:24:23 <Yogesh> Luc: point raised before. need to discuss for 5mins. model has to be described in natural language and illustrated graphically. Not abt graphical notation.

20:24:54 <Yogesh> Luc: this requirement is in the charter. do we still need it?

20:25:06 <Yogesh> All in the group responded Yes

20:25:23 <Yogesh> Luc: will start using graphical notation to illustrate examples

20:25:39 <pgroth> ACCEPTED: use owl for the schema deliverable but with the reminders to try to have  "lightweight" owl and to make it "natural rdf"

20:25:42 <Yogesh> Paulo: have graphical tool that will help with opm-like illustration

20:26:34 <Yogesh> Luc: can we define a minimal set of conventions? e.g. edges for derivation, process are boxes,  entity states are ellipses, etc.

20:26:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: *illustrations* better than notation

20:27:11 <Yogesh> Luc: not a "full language" since there are too many things

20:28:15 <pgroth> no a full language

20:28:20 <pgroth> not a full language

20:28:49 <zednik> *clap clap clap*

20:30:17 <Zakim> -zednik

20:35:55 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has ended

20:35:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Meeting_Room, zednik, GK, olaf, [ISI], dgarijo