Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Satya's action (continue discussion on issues 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200) remains open. Luc's action (write a blog for WD3) to coincide with WD3.
Not enough votes were cast for proposals related to ISSUE-206. The vote will continue, reminders will be sent. The editors have made the changes they wanted to carry out for WD3. The group is invited to review the document, in view of a vote for release next week.
We welcome Michael Lang who joined the team as co-editor. Alignment with PROV-DM is progressing well. Intent is still to have a revised ontology by the time of F2F2.
We continued the discussion on identifiers, which was initiated last week. A proposal was supported related to identifiers and objects in the Universe of Discourse. As we run out of time, we agreed we would continue the discussion by email during the week.
16:01:11 <Zakim> +tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo ←
<luc>Guest: Alex Hall
16:03:07 <Luc> topic: Admin
Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Satya's action (continue discussion on issues 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200) remains open. Luc's action (write a blog for WD3) to coincide with WD3.
<luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. Satya's action (continue discussion on issues 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200) remains open. Luc's action (write a blog for WD3) to coincide with WD3.
16:02:51 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-12
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-12 ←
16:02:55 <satya> Luc: Discuss PROV-DM, identifiers, and if possible accounts
Luc Moreau: Discuss PROV-DM, identifiers, and if possible accounts [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:02:56 <Luc> PROPOSED: to accepted the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference
PROPOSED: to accepted the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference ←
16:03:02 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:03:14 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
16:03:16 <MichaelL> +1
Michael Lang: +1 ←
16:03:27 <tlebo> -1 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-01-12 404s
Timothy Lebo: -1 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-01-12 404s ←
16:03:34 <smiles> 0 (absent)
Simon Miles: 0 (absent) ←
16:03:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-12
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-12 ←
16:03:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:04:00 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:04:04 <stephenc> +1
Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←
16:04:07 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:04:16 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
16:04:25 <Luc> Accepted: the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference
RESOLVED: the minutes of Jan 12 teleconference ←
16:04:34 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open ←
16:04:45 <satya> Luc: Reviewing outstanding actions
Luc Moreau: Reviewing outstanding actions [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:04:53 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:05:01 <satya> Luc: 1. Write a blog on PROV-DM
Luc Moreau: 1. Write a blog on PROV-DM [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:05:29 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
16:05:35 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm ←
16:06:02 <Luc> 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200
Luc Moreau: 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 200 ←
16:06:20 <tlebo> (the issues that are on Satya's action)
Timothy Lebo: (the issues that are on Satya's action) ←
16:06:35 <satya> Luc: 2. Action for Satya to respond to outstanding issues
Luc Moreau: 2. Action for Satya to respond to outstanding issues [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:07:01 <Luc> Topic: prov-dm
Summary: Not enough votes were cast for proposals related to ISSUE-206. The vote will continue, reminders will be sent. The editors have made the changes they wanted to carry out for WD3. The group is invited to review the document, in view of a vote for release next week.
<Luc>Summary: Not enough votes were cast for proposals related to ISSUE-206. The vote will continue, reminders will be sent. The editors have made the changes they wanted to carry out for WD3. The group is invited to review the document, in view of a vote for release next week.
16:07:02 <satya> Luc: Please sign up for scribe duties
Luc Moreau: Please sign up for scribe duties [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:07:14 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html ←
16:07:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
16:07:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:07:57 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
16:07:59 <tlebo> missed it. Didn't realize there was a vote.
Timothy Lebo: missed it. Didn't realize there was a vote. ←
16:08:03 <smiles> yes, sorry, just been swamped, no other reason
Simon Miles: yes, sorry, just been swamped, no other reason ←
16:08:05 <jcheney> zakim, ??P12 is me
James Cheney: zakim, ??P12 is me ←
16:08:05 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←
16:08:09 <Paolo> mostly lost in the noise for me
Paolo Missier: mostly lost in the noise for me ←
16:08:11 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
16:08:11 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
16:08:12 <satya> Luc: Need to vote on issue at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html
Luc Moreau: Need to vote on issue at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jan/0073.html [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:08:13 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:08:13 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:08:20 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:08:31 <satya> Luc: Will send a reminder to vote
Luc Moreau: Will send a reminder to vote [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:08:51 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.633.aaaa ←
16:08:55 <Luc> ack pgroth
Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←
16:08:57 <Luc> Title was: PROV-ISSUE-206: three proposals to vote on (deadline Jan 15th midnight GMT)
Luc Moreau: Title was: PROV-ISSUE-206: three proposals to vote on (deadline Jan 15th midnight GMT) ←
16:09:04 <satya> pgroth: Indicate the content for voting in the subject line
Paul Groth: Indicate the content for voting in the subject line [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:09:46 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
16:09:52 <satya> Luc: Already listed in the subject line of the mail
Luc Moreau: Already listed in the subject line of the mail [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:10:47 <satya> Luc: Next item - Paolo and me have been editing PROV-DM - specialization and alternateOf
Luc Moreau: Next item - Paolo and me have been editing PROV-DM - specialization and alternateOf [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:11:09 <satya> Luc: Reaching agreement on the transitivity of these constructs
Luc Moreau: Reaching agreement on the transitivity of these constructs [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:11:40 <satya> Luc: Have addressed all issues for the third release of DM
Luc Moreau: Have addressed all issues for the third release of DM [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:11:45 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
16:11:47 <Paolo> @stian are you available tomorrow -- new attempt to connect re: the collections setion
Paolo Missier: @stian are you available tomorrow -- new attempt to connect re: the collections setion ←
16:11:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:11:58 <satya> Luc: Outstanding issues have been listed at end of each section
Luc Moreau: Outstanding issues have been listed at end of each section [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:12:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:12:29 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P27 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P27 is me ←
16:12:29 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:12:40 <satya> Luc: Propose to vote on release of DM as third working draft for next week
Luc Moreau: Propose to vote on release of DM as third working draft for next week [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:12:42 <Luc> Topic: prov-o
Summary: We welcome Michael Lang who joined the team as co-editor. Alignment with PROV-DM is progressing well. Intent is still to have a revised ontology by the time of F2F2.
<Luc>Summary: We welcome Michael Lang who joined the team as co-editor. Alignment with PROV-DM is progressing well. Intent is still to have a revised ontology by the time of F2F2.
16:12:56 <satya> Luc: Next item - PROV-O document
Luc Moreau: Next item - PROV-O document [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:13:56 <tlebo> todo list that has been making progress is in meeting notes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-16
Timothy Lebo: todo list that has been making progress is in meeting notes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-16 ←
16:14:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:14:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:14:07 <dgarijo> +q
Daniel Garijo: +q ←
16:14:15 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, IPcaller is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
16:14:15 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:14:38 <Luc> ack dga
Luc Moreau: ack dga ←
16:15:14 <dgarijo> @satya: that's great
Daniel Garijo: @satya: that's great ←
16:16:00 <satya> MichaelL is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor
Satya Sahoo: MichaelL is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor ←
16:16:17 <satya> MichaelL: Working on blog post examples will soon post an update
Michael Lang: Working on blog post examples will soon post an update [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:16:34 <dgarijo> @satya : will we be discussing the best practices doc this monday too?
Daniel Garijo: @satya : will we be discussing the best practices doc this monday too? ←
16:16:45 <Luc> Luc: Mike is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor
Luc Moreau: Mike is joining the PROV-O team as co-editor [ Scribe Assist by Luc Moreau ] ←
16:17:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:17:05 <dgarijo> +q
Daniel Garijo: +q ←
16:17:17 <Luc> ack dg
Luc Moreau: ack dg ←
16:17:52 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:18:02 <satya> DanielG: The PROV-O is becoming unwieldy with qualified involvement construct
Daniel Garijo: The PROV-O is becoming unwieldy with qualified involvement construct [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:18:16 <satya> DanielG: Would it make sense to have two resources?
Daniel Garijo: Would it make sense to have two resources? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:18:32 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:18:35 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
16:18:43 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, I think we were thinking more about files, where people who are interested in a provo-light can use it
Khalid Belhajjame: @Paul, I think we were thinking more about files, where people who are interested in a provo-light can use it ←
16:18:49 <tlebo> +q to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy.
Timothy Lebo: +q to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy. ←
16:19:41 <satya> pgroth: Recommend have both resources with same namespace instead of having two separate resources
Paul Groth: Recommend have both resources with same namespace instead of having two separate resources [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:19:42 <dgarijo> @tim: yeah, but the modules can share the namespace, right?
Daniel Garijo: @tim: yeah, but the modules can share the namespace, right? ←
16:20:02 <dgarijo> I have to agree with paul on the namespace requirement.
Daniel Garijo: I have to agree with paul on the namespace requirement. ←
16:20:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:20:08 <Luc> ack tl
Luc Moreau: ack tl ←
16:20:08 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that we'll need "modules" for the prov-o "syntax" and prov-o "constraints" portions. So we'll need to tackele "modules" anywayy. ←
16:20:12 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:20:47 <satya> Luc: Agree with Paul for using single namespace for PROV-O
Luc Moreau: Agree with Paul for using single namespace for PROV-O [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:21:02 <satya> Luc: May be premature to re-organize the ontology
Luc Moreau: May be premature to re-organize the ontology [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:21:03 <tlebo> q+ to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc. ←
16:21:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:21:11 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:21:38 <satya> Tim: Is there a single approach for PROV-DM and PROV-O w.r.t. namespace
Timothy Lebo: Is there a single approach for PROV-DM and PROV-O w.r.t. namespace [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:21:41 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:21:52 <satya> Luc: It is on the table for discussion
Luc Moreau: It is on the table for discussion [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:22:26 <Luc> ack tle
Luc Moreau: ack tle ←
16:22:26 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask for clarity in namespaces among dm, prov-o, etc. ←
16:22:26 <satya> Luc: Proposal to have namespace for different PROV resources (XML, OWL etc.)
Luc Moreau: Proposal to have namespace for different PROV resources (XML, OWL etc.) [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:22:53 <tlebo> +1 tracking it as an issue.
Timothy Lebo: +1 tracking it as an issue. ←
16:22:58 <satya> pgroth: This should be raised as an issue
Paul Groth: This should be raised as an issue [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:23:02 <Luc> it's already a comment in prov-dm
Luc Moreau: it's already a comment in prov-dm ←
16:23:14 <dgarijo> @paul: sounds good as a reminder.
Daniel Garijo: @paul: sounds good as a reminder. ←
16:23:22 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
16:23:29 <tlebo> I've pulled some notes on this last time I heard about it: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV-O_URI_namespace
Timothy Lebo: I've pulled some notes on this last time I heard about it: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV-O_URI_namespace ←
16:24:23 <Luc> ack sat
Luc Moreau: ack sat ←
16:24:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:24:39 <Luc> Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
Summary: We continued the discussion on identifiers, which was initiated last week. A proposal was supported related to identifiers and objects in the Universe of Discourse. As we run out of time, we agreed we would continue the discussion by email during the week.
<Luc>Summary: We continued the discussion on identifiers, which was initiated last week. A proposal was supported related to identifiers and objects in the Universe of Discourse. As we run out of time, we agreed we would continue the discussion by email during the week.
16:24:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport ←
16:25:30 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport#Discussion_about_Identifiers
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport#Discussion_about_Identifiers ←
16:25:46 <satya> Luc: Created an example to highlight problematic issues in DM w.r.t to identifiers
Luc Moreau: Created an example to highlight problematic issues in DM w.r.t to identifiers [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:26:10 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers ←
16:26:42 <satya> Luc: Agree on some of the issues related to identifiers - enumerated proposals
Luc Moreau: Agree on some of the issues related to identifiers - enumerated proposals [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:27:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:27:12 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
16:27:26 <Luc> ack sm
Luc Moreau: ack sm ←
16:28:09 <satya> smiles: What has been proposed w.r.t common relations in DM, for example wasRevisionOf and usage events
Simon Miles: What has been proposed w.r.t common relations in DM, for example wasRevisionOf and usage events [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:28:13 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:29:07 <satya> smiles: For example, A is revisionOf B then identify generation of A?
Simon Miles: For example, A is revisionOf B then identify generation of A? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:29:26 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aabb ←
16:29:32 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:29:45 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:29:47 <pgroth> to respond to simon
Paul Groth: to respond to simon ←
16:29:51 <satya> Luc: Elicit feedback on example first
Luc Moreau: Elicit feedback on example first [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:30:00 <Zakim> +??P41
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P41 ←
16:30:02 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:30:12 <GK> zakim, ??p41 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p41 is me ←
16:30:12 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
16:30:13 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers ←
16:30:16 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:30:22 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:30:41 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:31:38 <dgarijo> satya: what happens if in account1 I make all the assertions in account2. What would be the relation between them?
Satya Sahoo: what happens if in account1 I make all the assertions in account2. What would be the relation between them? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
16:32:19 <Luc> entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="html4" ])
Luc Moreau: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="html4" ]) ←
16:32:20 <satya> @Daniel: thanks Daniel!
Satya Sahoo: @Daniel: thanks Daniel! ←
16:32:28 <dgarijo> @satya: np
Daniel Garijo: @satya: np ←
16:32:31 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication2.prov-asn
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication2.prov-asn ←
16:32:47 <Luc> entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ])
Luc Moreau: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ]) ←
16:32:53 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication1.prov-asn
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/examples/w3cpub/w3c-publication1.prov-asn ←
16:33:15 <Luc> entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD", prov:type="html4" ])
Luc Moreau: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD", prov:type="html4" ]) ←
16:33:41 <pgroth> it's fine
Paul Groth: it's fine ←
16:33:49 <pgroth> nothing happens
Paul Groth: nothing happens ←
16:34:11 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:34:11 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:34:16 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:34:23 <Paolo> @satya: no special action needed I guess
Paolo Missier: @satya: no special action needed I guess ←
16:34:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
16:35:02 <Luc> ack sat
Luc Moreau: ack sat ←
16:35:04 <dgarijo> @satya: well, accounts can be redundant, right?
Daniel Garijo: @satya: well, accounts can be redundant, right? ←
16:35:11 <pgroth> +1 to MacTed
Paul Groth: +1 to MacTed ←
16:35:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:36:02 <Paolo> @satya that's still fine we don't draw any conclusion from comparing the content of two accounts
Paolo Missier: @satya that's still fine we don't draw any conclusion from comparing the content of two accounts ←
16:36:39 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
16:37:24 <pgroth> maybe we can get a summary
Paul Groth: maybe we can get a summary ←
16:37:28 <pgroth> of the problem
Paul Groth: of the problem ←
16:37:33 <satya> MacTed: Misapprehension about the problem and the possible solution
Ted Thibodeau: Misapprehension about the problem and the possible solution [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:37:36 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
Khalid Belhajjame: -q ←
16:38:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport ←
16:38:52 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:39:14 <Luc> ack Mac
Luc Moreau: ack Mac ←
16:39:21 <GK> (It seems to me that the different accounts per http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport correspond to differing epistemological positions)
Graham Klyne: (It seems to me that the different accounts per http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceOfW3CReport correspond to differing epistemological positions) ←
16:39:30 <Paolo> @Luc I suggest that we move to the specific proposals
Paolo Missier: @Luc I suggest that we move to the specific proposals ←
16:40:07 <satya> @GK: I agree
Satya Sahoo: @GK: I agree ←
16:40:09 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProposalsForIdentifiers ←
16:40:40 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable and have an identifier.
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable and have an identifier. ←
16:42:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:42:27 <satya> Luc: Identifiers seem to denote entities and at other places it identifies records
Luc Moreau: Identifiers seem to denote entities and at other places it identifies records [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:42:27 <MacTed> "have an identifier" -- better "have one or more identifiers"
Ted Thibodeau: "have an identifier" -- better "have one or more identifiers" ←
16:42:28 <GK> q+ to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes.
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes. ←
16:42:28 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:42:43 <Luc> ack GK
Luc Moreau: ack GK ←
16:42:43 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if we need *all* elements in domain of discourse to be identified. E.g. In RDF we have blank nodes. ←
16:43:09 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
16:43:13 <satya> GK: Not all elements in domain of discourse may be identifiable
Graham Klyne: Not all elements in domain of discourse may be identifiable [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:44:13 <satya> Luc: Current DM states that all entities have to be identifiable but may not have an identifier?
Luc Moreau: Current DM states that all entities have to be identifiable but may not have an identifier? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:44:33 <satya> Luc: If there is no identifier, then how can they be referred to?
Luc Moreau: If there is no identifier, then how can they be referred to? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:44:42 <MacTed> q+ identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
Ted Thibodeau: q+ identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"... ←
16:44:50 <MacTed> q+ to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
Ted Thibodeau: q+ to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"... ←
16:45:06 <satya> GK: Should identifiers in DM be same identifiers as in other serializations?
Graham Klyne: Should identifiers in DM be same identifiers as in other serializations? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:45:29 <GK> Also, I asked if "entity records" are *in* the domain of discourse
Graham Klyne: Also, I asked if "entity records" are *in* the domain of discourse ←
16:45:31 <satya> @GK: If they are blank node identifiers what is their state outside of the specific RDF document?
Satya Sahoo: @GK: If they are blank node identifiers what is their state outside of the specific RDF document? ←
16:45:55 <GK> I agree that *accounts* are in the domain of discourse. Are these same as records?
Graham Klyne: I agree that *accounts* are in the domain of discourse. Are these same as records? ←
16:46:00 <stain> generation event of entity is akwsys identifiable as long as the entity is
Stian Soiland-Reyes: generation event of entity is akwsys identifiable as long as the entity is ←
16:46:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:46:07 <satya> Luc: Need to discuss the provenance of accounts, hence accounts are part of universe of discourse
Luc Moreau: Need to discuss the provenance of accounts, hence accounts are part of universe of discourse [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:46:19 <stain> (have to go)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (have to go) ←
16:47:00 <MacTed> once I have an Account, I have an AccountCreator -- tho the latter may be "unknown" in all senses other than <entity> "CreatedAccount" <account>
Ted Thibodeau: once I have an Account, I have an AccountCreator -- tho the latter may be "unknown" in all senses other than <entity> "CreatedAccount" <account> ←
16:47:06 <Luc> entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ])
Luc Moreau: entity(w3:WD-prov-dm-20111215, [ prov:type="WD" ]) ←
16:48:24 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
16:49:05 <Luc> ack sat
Luc Moreau: ack sat ←
16:49:06 <GK> (Seems to me: an entity record (not in domain of discourse) introduces a name that denotes the described entity in domain of discourse. Unclear to me is whether this name is expected to carry though into any concrete representation (e.g. RDF)) I think this is what Luc is saying about proposal 1.
Graham Klyne: (Seems to me: an entity record (not in domain of discourse) introduces a name that denotes the described entity in domain of discourse. Unclear to me is whether this name is expected to carry though into any concrete representation (e.g. RDF)) I think this is what Luc is saying about proposal 1. ←
16:49:42 <satya> smiles: There are objects in domain of discourse that may not have identifiers?
Simon Miles: There are objects in domain of discourse that may not have identifiers? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:49:53 <GK> q+
Graham Klyne: q+ ←
16:49:57 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
16:50:03 <satya> @Simon Sorry didn't get your example
Satya Sahoo: @Simon Sorry didn't get your example ←
16:50:32 <MacTed> "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers."
Ted Thibodeau: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers." ←
16:50:34 <Paolo> +q
Paolo Missier: +q ←
16:50:49 <satya> @Mac: +1
Satya Sahoo: @Mac: +1 ←
16:50:49 <pgroth> +1 to MacTed
Paul Groth: +1 to MacTed ←
16:51:16 <dgarijo> @satya: he said that if a wasRevisionOf b, then the activity that generated a (revisionActivity) could not be identified
Daniel Garijo: @satya: he said that if a wasRevisionOf b, then the activity that generated a (revisionActivity) could not be identified ←
16:51:19 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.789.470.aabb ←
16:51:25 <GK> (@simon: I think DM may require/introduce identifiers for things that are described by DM records, not necessarily for everything in domain of discourse)
Graham Klyne: (@simon: I think DM may require/introduce identifiers for things that are described by DM records, not necessarily for everything in domain of discourse) ←
16:51:35 <Paolo> +q to answer "yes" to Simon: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly
Paolo Missier: +q to answer "yes" to Simon: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly ←
16:51:36 <satya> @Daniel: thanks! :)
Satya Sahoo: @Daniel: thanks! :) ←
16:51:55 <Luc> ack smil
Luc Moreau: ack smil ←
16:52:25 <GK> @macted +1
Graham Klyne: @macted +1 ←
16:52:27 <satya> MacTed: If something is identifiable does not mean they have an assigned identifier
Ted Thibodeau: If something is identifiable does not mean they have an assigned identifier [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:52:29 <dgarijo> @simon: so maybe in your example the activity is identifiable, but we may not know the identifier.
Daniel Garijo: @simon: so maybe in your example the activity is identifiable, but we may not know the identifier. ←
16:52:41 <dgarijo> @MacTed +1
Daniel Garijo: @MacTed +1 ←
16:53:44 <satya> Luc: If there is no identifier then how are they referred
Luc Moreau: If there is no identifier then how are they referred [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:53:47 <pgroth> you give it one
Paul Groth: you give it one ←
16:53:52 <GK> q+ to answer luc: a record /introduces/ an identifier
Graham Klyne: q+ to answer luc: a record /introduces/ an identifier ←
16:53:57 <satya> @Mac, Paul: exactly +1
Satya Sahoo: @Mac, Paul: exactly +1 ←
16:54:16 <Paolo> @simon: may have not been clear earlier: we do not know the id of entities that must exist (existential quantifier) but are not the object of any assertion, i.e., they remain implicit
Paolo Missier: @simon: may have not been clear earlier: we do not know the id of entities that must exist (existential quantifier) but are not the object of any assertion, i.e., they remain implicit ←
16:54:17 <smiles> @dgarijo OK, so under what you are suggesting, you mean that if we want to refer to the activity implied by a revisionOf relation, then we would introduce an identifier at that point?
Simon Miles: @dgarijo OK, so under what you are suggesting, you mean that if we want to refer to the activity implied by a revisionOf relation, then we would introduce an identifier at that point? ←
16:54:44 <khalidbelhajjame> q-
Khalid Belhajjame: q- ←
16:54:45 <MacTed> "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers. For purposes of discourse, an identifier SHOULD be assigned to the object of discourse." ?
Ted Thibodeau: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable, and MAY have one or more identifiers. For purposes of discourse, an identifier SHOULD be assigned to the object of discourse." ? ←
16:55:01 <GK> "There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use or introduce an identifer for the objects described"
Graham Klyne: "There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use or introduce an identifer for the objects described" ←
16:55:04 <pgroth> @MacTed good start
Paul Groth: @MacTed good start ←
16:55:18 <dgarijo> @smiles: I guess so. You can invent one.
Daniel Garijo: @smiles: I guess so. You can invent one. ←
16:55:52 <tlebo> yea!
Timothy Lebo: yea! ←
16:55:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:55:55 <pgroth> +1 to Graham
Paul Groth: +1 to Graham ←
16:56:03 <tlebo> +1 @gk
Timothy Lebo: +1 @gk ←
16:56:04 <satya> @GK: +1
Satya Sahoo: @GK: +1 ←
16:56:05 <GK> @macted - yes
Graham Klyne: @macted - yes ←
16:56:17 <Paolo> @GK only entity records? how about activities etc.
Paolo Missier: @GK only entity records? how about activities etc. ←
16:56:53 <GK> @paolo ack.
Graham Klyne: @paolo ack. ←
16:56:58 <dgarijo> @Paolo: that a nice point: do we have an "alternateOf" for activities?
Daniel Garijo: @Paolo: that a nice point: do we have an "alternateOf" for activities? ←
16:57:10 <satya> MacTed: Implied objects may not have identifiers
Ted Thibodeau: Implied objects may not have identifiers [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
16:57:16 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described ←
16:57:18 <GK> + "Implied entioties need not have an assigned idnetifier."
Graham Klyne: + "Implied entioties need not have an assigned idnetifier." ←
16:58:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:58:10 <tlebo> ?
Timothy Lebo: ? ←
16:58:15 <Luc> ack Ma
Luc Moreau: ack Ma ←
16:58:15 <Zakim> MacTed, you wanted to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"...
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed, you wanted to say identifiers may be context-specific, temporary, "that thing there"... ←
16:58:19 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
16:58:30 <Luc> ack Pao
Luc Moreau: ack Pao ←
16:58:30 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to answer "yes" to smiles: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly
Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to answer "yes" to smiles: necessary existence of an entity is not enough to know its identifier, clearly ←
16:58:43 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer for the objects described ←
16:58:52 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:58:53 <tlebo> "use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer" --> "introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifer"
Timothy Lebo: "use a new identfier or introduce an existing identifer" --> "introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifer" ←
16:59:07 <Paolo> @daniel: possibly, but this ID issue is not brought in "just" for alternateOf, rather it's a general principle that we decide to adopt
Paolo Missier: @daniel: possibly, but this ID issue is not brought in "just" for alternateOf, rather it's a general principle that we decide to adopt ←
16:59:48 <tlebo> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifier for the objects described.
Timothy Lebo: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records introduce a new identifier or reuse an existing identifier for the objects described. ←
16:59:53 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that entity records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described ←
17:00:03 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
17:00:10 <tlebo> "provenace records"
Timothy Lebo: "provenace records" ←
17:00:17 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described ←
17:00:19 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
17:00:20 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
17:00:21 <satya> @Tim, +1
Satya Sahoo: @Tim, +1 ←
17:00:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:00:32 <Luc> ack sat
Luc Moreau: ack sat ←
17:00:48 <MacTed> "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
Ted Thibodeau: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." ←
17:01:00 <Paolo> q-
Paolo Missier: q- ←
17:01:03 <satya> Paolo: Any object should be subject to the identifier rule
Paolo Missier: Any object should be subject to the identifier rule [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:01:04 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
17:01:07 <MacTed> (maybe change the second MUST to SHOULD)
Ted Thibodeau: (maybe change the second MUST to SHOULD) ←
17:01:43 <MacTed> (yes, I'm deliberately removing extraneous "there is a requirement that" wording from the text.)
Ted Thibodeau: (yes, I'm deliberately removing extraneous "there is a requirement that" wording from the text.) ←
17:01:44 <GK> q+ to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet.
Graham Klyne: q+ to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet. ←
17:01:50 <satya> pgroth: Concerned that implicit elements may have identifiers and proposal 1 does not cover that?
Paul Groth: Concerned that implicit elements may have identifiers and proposal 1 does not cover that? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:01:54 <smiles> Agreed with Luc - as long as record is explicit, it is fine
Simon Miles: Agreed with Luc - as long as record is explicit, it is fine ←
17:01:56 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:02:05 <tlebo> +1 to including RFC2119 (like MacTed's)
Timothy Lebo: +1 to including RFC2119 (like MacTed's) ←
17:02:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:02:30 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
17:02:30 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to note we haven't said anything about the nature of these identifiers. Thisis OK, but we haven't licensed any further assumptions yet. ←
17:02:36 <Luc> There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
Luc Moreau: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described ←
17:02:46 <satya> GK: Concerned that it does not lead to additional entailments from this proposal?
Graham Klyne: Concerned that it does not lead to additional entailments from this proposal? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:02:50 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
17:02:52 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
17:02:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
17:02:54 <Luc> PROPOSAL: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described
PROPOSED: There is a requirement that *all* objects of discourse are identifiable, and that records reuse an existing identifier or introduce a new identifier for the objects described ←
17:02:57 <MacTed> I need a clear PROPOSAL to vote on...
Ted Thibodeau: I need a clear PROPOSAL to vote on... ←
17:02:57 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
17:03:02 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
17:03:02 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
17:03:03 <MacTed> -1
Ted Thibodeau: -1 ←
17:03:03 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
17:03:04 <tlebo> -1 should include RFC2119 terms
Timothy Lebo: -1 should include RFC2119 terms ←
17:03:13 <MacTed> the language semms deliberately obscuring
Ted Thibodeau: the language semms deliberately obscuring ←
17:03:15 <dgarijo> +1, although I liked more MacTed's
Daniel Garijo: +1, although I liked more MacTed's ←
17:03:23 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:03:46 <sandro> (agreed -- this is not the final wording, just the idea.)
Sandro Hawke: (agreed -- this is not the final wording, just the idea.) ←
17:03:48 <tlebo> +1 for intent (please add RFC2119 like MacTed's)
Timothy Lebo: +1 for intent (please add RFC2119 like MacTed's) ←
17:03:56 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
17:04:00 <Paolo> so the vote is on the "general principle" only?
Paolo Missier: so the vote is on the "general principle" only? ←
17:04:25 <GK> @macted - I think the intent is same as what you said: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
Graham Klyne: @macted - I think the intent is same as what you said: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." ←
17:04:39 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
PROPOSED: "*All* objects of discourse MUST be identifiable. Object descriptions MUST use an identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." ←
17:04:51 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
17:05:51 <satya> I thought we were voting for the final version of the proposal?
Satya Sahoo: I thought we were voting for the final version of the proposal? ←
17:06:00 <sandro> sandro: I don't think RFC 2119 language works unless it's clear who/what is constrained to follow it.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think RFC 2119 language works unless it's clear who/what is constrained to follow it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:06:00 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
17:06:01 <tlebo> +1 to acknowledging these two have the intent and moving on.
Timothy Lebo: +1 to acknowledging these two have the intent and moving on. ←
17:06:33 <satya> Paolo: Is the current formulation reconciling record and entity?
Paolo Missier: Is the current formulation reconciling record and entity? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:06:49 <pgroth> whatever you want
Paul Groth: whatever you want ←
17:06:55 <satya> Paolo: Which identifier needs to be re-used?
Paolo Missier: Which identifier needs to be re-used? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:06:57 <pgroth> @Paolo: whatever you want
Paul Groth: @Paolo: whatever you want ←
17:07:14 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:07:14 <tlebo> @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties.
Timothy Lebo: @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties. ←
17:07:43 <pgroth> @paolo whatever you want
Paul Groth: @paolo whatever you want ←
17:07:45 <satya> Paolo: What criteria is used to choose to re-use an identifier?
Paolo Missier: What criteria is used to choose to re-use an identifier? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:07:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:07:50 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
17:07:52 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
17:08:02 <tlebo> @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties.
Timothy Lebo: @paolo - choosing to reuse an identifeir is up to the asserter based on its properties. ←
17:08:14 <Luc> ack kh
Luc Moreau: ack kh ←
17:08:23 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
PROPOSED: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." ←
17:08:29 <tlebo> alternateOf!
Timothy Lebo: alternateOf! ←
17:08:38 <GK> The point is, I think, when the intent of assertion is to refer to something already described, to re-use the identifier already used. This is how names work, no?
Graham Klyne: The point is, I think, when the intent of assertion is to refer to something already described, to re-use the identifier already used. This is how names work, no? ←
17:08:40 <tlebo> (not complementOf)
Timothy Lebo: (not complementOf) ←
17:08:59 <tlebo> @GK, "GK, who?" ;-)
Timothy Lebo: @GK, "GK, who?" ;-) ←
17:09:03 <satya> Khalid: Should use same identifier for same entity?
Khalid Belhajjame: Should use same identifier for same entity? [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:09:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:09:16 <Paolo> @tlebo makes sense, in principle
Paolo Missier: @tlebo makes sense, in principle ←
17:09:19 <GK> @tlebo the same GK as referred to previously :)
Graham Klyne: @tlebo the same GK as referred to previously :) ←
17:09:23 <MacTed> if you know someone used a name for the thing (and what that name is), then sure, you might choose to reuse their naming. what if you don't know they did, nor what name they chose
Ted Thibodeau: if you know someone used a name for the thing (and what that name is), then sure, you might choose to reuse their naming. what if you don't know they did, nor what name they chose ←
17:09:29 <MacTed> ?
Ted Thibodeau: ? ←
17:09:36 <satya> Khalid: Not including a criteria for re-using identifier is fine
Khalid Belhajjame: Not including a criteria for re-using identifier is fine [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ] ←
17:09:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:09:53 <Luc> PROPOSAL: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described."
PROPOSED: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions (e.g., "entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." ←
17:09:56 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
17:10:04 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
17:10:05 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
17:10:05 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:10:11 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
17:10:14 <smiles> +1 (for intent)
Simon Miles: +1 (for intent) ←
17:10:16 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
17:10:20 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
17:10:29 <tlebo> +1 to intent, just like Luc's
Timothy Lebo: +1 to intent, just like Luc's ←
17:10:35 <dgarijo> satya: is object description just an example?
Satya Sahoo: is object description just an example? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:10:38 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
17:10:44 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
17:10:48 <MacTed> s/"entity records" and otherwise/e.g., "entity records" and otherwise/
17:10:48 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:11:03 <Luc> ACCEPTED: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." (intent)
RESOLVED: "*All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects described." (intent) ←
17:12:20 <Luc> PROPOSAL: Generation and Usage events also belong to the universe of discourse. So they should be given identifiers (as per proposal 1)
PROPOSED: Generation and Usage events also belong to the universe of discourse. So they should be given identifiers (as per proposal 1) ←
17:12:29 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
17:12:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:12:57 <jcheney> This is in line with the current formal semantics.
James Cheney: This is in line with the current formal semantics. ←
17:13:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:13:15 <Luc> ack saty
Luc Moreau: ack saty ←
17:13:32 <smiles> I agree, it seems a natural consequence of proposal 1
Simon Miles: I agree, it seems a natural consequence of proposal 1 ←
17:13:36 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
17:13:39 <pgroth> @smiles +1
Paul Groth: @smiles +1 ←
17:14:39 <dgarijo> the only problem I see is the identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers.
Daniel Garijo: the only problem I see is the identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers. ←
17:14:45 <GK> I think there are two remaining areas for discussion: (a) what are the objects in the domain of discourse, and (b) what identifiers may be used in DM and how to the relate to, e.g., URIs used in RDF.
Graham Klyne: I think there are two remaining areas for discussion: (a) what are the objects in the domain of discourse, and (b) what identifiers may be used in DM and how to the relate to, e.g., URIs used in RDF. ←
17:15:00 <pgroth> @GK - Nice point
Paul Groth: @GK - Nice point ←
17:15:23 <smiles> @dgarijo Isn't that just an unavoidable problem for anything identifiable?
Simon Miles: @dgarijo Isn't that just an unavoidable problem for anything identifiable? ←
17:15:27 <tlebo> @dgarijo, what is wrong with "identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers." ?
Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, what is wrong with "identifiers that would be given in 2 accounts that are describing the same process with different identifiers." ? ←
17:15:51 <MacTed> I think that "objects in the domain of discourse" actually include Events (Generation, Usage, and otherwise), Derivations, Notes, and otherwise
Ted Thibodeau: I think that "objects in the domain of discourse" actually include Events (Generation, Usage, and otherwise), Derivations, Notes, and otherwise ←
17:15:55 <dgarijo> how would I say that both activities are the same? owl:sameAs?
Daniel Garijo: how would I say that both activities are the same? owl:sameAs? ←
17:16:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:16:05 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
17:16:07 <Luc> ack satya
Luc Moreau: ack satya ←
17:16:10 <tlebo> prov\:alternativeOf or owl:sameAs
Timothy Lebo: prov\:alternativeOf or owl:sameAs ←
17:16:11 <GK> @MacTed - I think so too.
Graham Klyne: @MacTed - I think so too. ←
17:16:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:16:19 <dgarijo> alternativeof is for entities ;)
Daniel Garijo: alternativeof is for entities ;) ←
17:16:22 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
17:16:23 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
17:16:25 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.633.aaaa ←
17:16:26 <MacTed> 2 accounts using 2 identifiers for the same entity is an implementation issue -- i.e., someone needs a Reasoning Engine
Ted Thibodeau: 2 accounts using 2 identifiers for the same entity is an implementation issue -- i.e., someone needs a Reasoning Engine ←
17:16:27 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
17:16:29 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←
17:16:31 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:16:32 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
17:16:32 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
17:16:33 <Zakim> -Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←
17:16:34 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
17:16:36 <Zakim> -??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6 ←
17:16:38 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:16:40 <Zakim> -pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←
17:16:43 <MacTed> to handle the owl:sameAs (or other) relationships
Ted Thibodeau: to handle the owl:sameAs (or other) relationships ←
17:16:49 <Zakim> -??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P18 ←
17:16:57 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
17:16:57 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
17:16:59 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, AlexHall, tlebo, dgarijo, sandro, jcheney, MacTed, +1.518.633.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +44.789.470.aabb, GK
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, AlexHall, tlebo, dgarijo, sandro, jcheney, MacTed, +1.518.633.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +44.789.470.aabb, GK ←
17:17:00 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:17:04 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:17:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-prov-minutes.html Luc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-prov-minutes.html Luc ←
17:17:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:17:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
Formatted by CommonScribe