The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.
The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features
The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.
The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".
After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.
the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call
Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.
Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.
incompatibility prov-dm and prov-o and moving to last call
Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.
The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.
The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.
The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.
James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.
15:32:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-irc ←
15:32:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:33:01 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
15:33:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
15:33:02 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Face-to-Face
15:33:03 <trackbot> Date: 22 June 2012
15:33:11 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:33:11 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 27 minutes ←
15:34:39 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
15:35:08 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
15:43:15 <pgroth> is anyone on the telecon yet?
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Paul Groth: is anyone on the telecon yet? ←
15:43:50 <dgarijo> I tried, but it said that it is restricted at this time
Daniel Garijo: I tried, but it said that it is restricted at this time ←
15:43:55 <pgroth> ok
Paul Groth: ok ←
15:45:56 <GK> I'm not sure much of tghe meeting I'll be able to follow... I hadn't fully appreciated the time difference when I said I'd try to join in today.
Graham Klyne: I'm not sure much of tghe meeting I'll be able to follow... I hadn't fully appreciated the time difference when I said I'd try to join in today. ←
15:48:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started ←
15:48:40 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
15:48:49 <jun> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:48:49 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
15:49:34 <Zakim> -jun
Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←
15:49:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended ←
15:49:36 <Zakim> Attendees were jun
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jun ←
15:50:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started ←
15:50:14 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
15:50:25 <jun> Am I the only one dialing in? I was told I am the first participant of the conference
Jun Zhao: Am I the only one dialing in? I was told I am the first participant of the conference ←
15:50:28 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa ←
15:50:41 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
15:50:42 <jun> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:50:43 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
15:50:49 <dgarijo> zakim, ??P2 is me
Daniel Garijo: zakim, ??P2 is me ←
15:50:49 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
15:52:30 <Luc> scribe: tlebo
(Scribe set to Timothy Lebo)
15:56:49 <tlebo> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:56:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo ←
15:56:55 <tlebo> Zakime, I am happy
Zakime, I am happy ←
15:57:43 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
16:02:41 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
16:02:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jun, +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo ←
16:02:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, zednik, tlebo, dcorsar_, GK, pgroth, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, dgarijo, jun, MacTed, sandro, trackbot, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see hook, zednik, tlebo, dcorsar_, GK, pgroth, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, dgarijo, jun, MacTed, sandro, trackbot, stain ←
16:03:07 <Luc> guest: Hook Hua
16:04:50 <Luc> regrets: Deborah McGuinness, James McCusker, Simon Miles, Ivan Herman, Olaf Hartig, Sam Coppens
16:06:08 <tlebo> The rest of the faces have arrived.
The rest of the faces have arrived. ←
16:06:31 <dgarijo> I am afraid I will only be able to attend around 2 hours, since it is getting late here :(
Daniel Garijo: I am afraid I will only be able to attend around 2 hours, since it is getting late here :( ←
16:08:09 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
Daniel Garijo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule ←
16:08:10 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
Summary: The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.
<pgroth> Summary: The group was informed that Ivan will become our new W3C Contact replacing Sandro. The group thanked Sandro for all his work. Luc gave an update about the status of the group. There was good progress on since the last face to face. However, even with the progress we still need to ask for an extension by the end of July. The goals of the meeting were set out. Namely, to finalize what needed to be done for Last Call on the various document, to draft Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and to prepare for a Call for Implementations.
16:08:20 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-14
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-14 ←
16:08:30 <pgroth> proposed: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon
PROPOSED: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon ←
16:08:36 <tlebo> +1
+1 ←
16:08:37 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:08:39 <jun> +1
16:08:56 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:09:02 <jcheney> 0 (was not present)
James Cheney: 0 (was not present) ←
16:09:03 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
16:09:16 <dcorsar_> 0 (was not present)
David Corsar: 0 (was not present) ←
16:09:29 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon
RESOLVED: Minutes of the June 14, 2012 telcon ←
16:11:02 <tlebo> luc: Sandro has been our w3c contact; he is moving to other w3c tasks.
Luc Moreau: Sandro has been our w3c contact; he is moving to other w3c tasks. ←
16:11:10 <tlebo> ... ivan to be our new contact.
... ivan to be our new contact. ←
16:11:47 <tlebo> luc: review of what we've been doing and what we are to do.
Luc Moreau: review of what we've been doing and what we are to do. ←
16:11:57 <tlebo> ... first WD of DM in Sept.
... first WD of DM in Sept. ←
16:12:17 <tlebo> ... F2F2 led to good progress.
... F2F2 led to good progress. ←
16:12:26 <tlebo> ... now trying to prepare LCs.
... now trying to prepare LCs. ←
16:12:43 <tlebo> ... charter on homepage: Oct 1.
... charter on homepage: Oct 1. ←
16:12:56 <tlebo> ... we need to request charter extension.
... we need to request charter extension. ←
16:13:15 <tlebo> ... logistics on charter extension.
... logistics on charter extension. ←
16:13:33 <tlebo> ... request needs to be ready by end of July.
... request needs to be ready by end of July. ←
16:13:43 <tlebo> ... request is non-trivial.
... request is non-trivial. ←
16:14:04 <tlebo> ... we have one shot at the request. no more extensions.
... we have one shot at the request. no more extensions. ←
16:14:11 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
16:14:27 <GK> zakim, ??p3 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p3 is me ←
16:14:27 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
16:14:31 <tlebo> ... goal of this meeting: identify what we want and need to do, decide what not to do.
... goal of this meeting: identify what we want and need to do, decide what not to do. ←
16:15:09 <tlebo> ... it is up to the WG to decide how much more time to ask for.
... it is up to the WG to decide how much more time to ask for. ←
16:15:26 <tlebo> ... our timetable from F2F2 shoots for Jan.
... our timetable from F2F2 shoots for Jan. ←
16:15:27 <pgroth> Revised timetable: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0
Paul Groth: Revised timetable: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0 ←
16:15:40 <tlebo> ... may want to add a month or two for safety.
... may want to add a month or two for safety. ←
16:16:02 <tlebo> ... goal of meeting is to finalize LC.
... goal of meeting is to finalize LC. ←
16:16:41 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
16:16:44 <tlebo> ... second goal: produce realistic timetable for remaining documents (Notes)
... second goal: produce realistic timetable for remaining documents (Notes) ←
16:17:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:17:27 <tlebo> ... we need to define what defines interoperability, aka "exit criteria".
... we need to define what defines interoperability, aka "exit criteria". ←
16:18:02 <tlebo> ... need to prepare for Call for Implementations. Need to manage it.
... need to prepare for Call for Implementations. Need to manage it. ←
16:18:17 <tlebo> ... who is going to take lead, what will be done?
... who is going to take lead, what will be done? ←
16:18:54 <tlebo> 4 goals: finalize LC, timetable for WG (extension), define CR exit criteria draft, Call for Implementation.
4 goals: finalize LC, timetable for WG (extension), define CR exit criteria draft, Call for Implementation. ←
16:19:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:19:11 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:19:51 <tlebo> topic: PROV-DM
Summary: The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features
<pgroth> Summary: The goal of this session was to resolve the remaining technical issues around the PROV-DM in order to proceed to last call. The chairs listed the following features as having technical issues that needed to be resolved: collections and dictionaries, contextualization, primary source, tracedTo, data types and synchronization between prov-o and prov-dm. The group agreed that these were the remaining technical issues to be resolved. Options were given for resolution of the issues: 1) Leave it as is 2) A quick resolution and change in the document 3) a combination of 1 or 2 while marking the feature at risk 4) complete removal of the features
16:20:00 <tlebo> paul: technical features.
Paul Groth: technical features. ←
16:20:07 <tlebo> ... all "technical features" are done in LC.
... all "technical features" are done in LC. ←
16:20:23 <tlebo> ... we are promising that all technical features are done.
... we are promising that all technical features are done. ←
16:20:51 <pgroth> collection contextualization primary source tracedTo (constraints are not final, should include specialization?) data types prov-o prov-dm incompability, e.g. prov\:location
Paul Groth: collection contextualization primary source tracedTo (constraints are not final, should include specialization?) data types prov-o prov-dm incompability, e.g. prov\:location ←
16:20:52 <tlebo> ... Paul and Luc looked through all reviews and listed the outstanding technical features.
... Paul and Luc looked through all reviews and listed the outstanding technical features. ←
16:21:06 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule ←
16:21:38 <tlebo> ... the above link shows the outstanding technical features that we need to settle.
... the above link shows the outstanding technical features that we need to settle. ←
16:21:40 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:21:42 <tlebo> ... any others?
... any others? ←
16:22:00 <tlebo> gk: prov-aq included?
Graham Klyne: prov-aq included? ←
16:22:03 <tlebo> paul: no
Paul Groth: no ←
16:22:14 <tlebo> ... we'll talk about this afternoon.
... we'll talk about this afternoon. ←
16:22:18 <tlebo> ^ tomorrow
^ tomorrow ←
16:22:18 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:22:24 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:22:30 <GK1> Hmmm... I won't be around tomorrow
Graham Klyne: Hmmm... I won't be around tomorrow ←
16:22:43 <GK1> But maybe that's OK.
Graham Klyne: But maybe that's OK. ←
16:23:09 <tlebo> jcheney: prov-constraints, what is the scope and intent of it?
James Cheney: prov-constraints, what is the scope and intent of it? ←
16:23:24 <tlebo> ... it is behind the others, we need to be aware of it.
... it is behind the others, we need to be aware of it. ←
16:24:15 <tlebo> Paul: lets walk through each technical features.
Paul Groth: lets walk through each technical features. ←
16:24:22 <tlebo> ... we have "options" on each feature.
... we have "options" on each feature. ←
16:24:29 <tlebo> ... 1 - rapid change and leave it in
... 1 - rapid change and leave it in ←
16:24:39 <tlebo> ... 2 - if consensus, leave in.
... 2 - if consensus, leave in. ←
16:24:50 <tlebo> ... 3 - can mark any feature as feature at risk.
... 3 - can mark any feature as feature at risk. ←
16:25:14 <tlebo> ... this is something we want to have, but it can be removed.
... this is something we want to have, but it can be removed. ←
16:25:26 <tlebo> ... 4 - remove a feature completely.
... 4 - remove a feature completely. ←
16:25:38 <tlebo> subtopic: Collections
Summary: The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.
16:25:50 <tlebo> subtopic dm - collections
subtopic dm - collections ←
<pgroth> Summary: The group felt that the the technical definition of collections had been settled, however, the key question was whether the whole collection definition inclusive of dictionaries should have be included in the recommendation. Some members felt that collections should not be included as they were not core to the recommendation. Others argued that collections are fundamental to so many domains and thus need to be included for interoparability. Several straw polls were taken. A consensus was reached to keep the collections class and its associated membership relation in the prov-dm recommendation and move the dictionary portion of recommendation to a separate Note.
16:26:33 <tlebo> pgroth: summary. there has been debate and we seem to have converged.
Paul Groth: summary. there has been debate and we seem to have converged. ←
16:26:40 <tlebo> ... Collection and hadMember.
... Collection and hadMember. ←
16:26:49 <tlebo> ... "pop-up"s about collections.
... "pop-up"s about collections. ←
16:27:05 <tlebo> ... e.g. okay to "strings" as keys in Dictionaries?
... e.g. okay to "strings" as keys in Dictionaries? ←
16:27:17 <tlebo> ... are Dictionaries stable enough for Rec?
... are Dictionaries stable enough for Rec? ←
16:27:28 <tlebo> ... or are they changing and will the continue to change?
... or are they changing and will the continue to change? ←
16:27:39 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:27:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:27:59 <tlebo> luc: we can split the discussions.
Luc Moreau: we can split the discussions. ←
16:28:00 <tlebo> q+
q+ ←
16:28:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:28:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:28:55 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:29:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
16:29:09 <tlebo> tlebo: my impression is that from the last weeks effort had settled it.
Timothy Lebo: my impression is that from the last weeks effort had settled it. ←
16:29:24 <tlebo> paolo: comfortable that we've settled it.
Paolo Missier: comfortable that we've settled it. ←
16:29:36 <tlebo> ... pop ups: Brian's concern. An official concern?
... pop ups: Brian's concern. An official concern? ←
16:29:40 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
16:30:00 <tlebo> ... "it's not clear" why they are there. "why aren't generic enough"
... "it's not clear" why they are there. "why aren't generic enough" ←
16:30:12 <tlebo> ... less worried about the technical definition.
... less worried about the technical definition. ←
16:30:31 <tlebo> ... the questions on the "strings" key issue.
... the questions on the "strings" key issue. ←
16:30:39 <tlebo> ... "all of prov has to be semantic"
... "all of prov has to be semantic" ←
16:30:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:30:55 <tlebo> ... in an RDF encoding doens't imply "semantics"
... in an RDF encoding doens't imply "semantics" ←
16:31:01 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:31:23 <tlebo> stephanZ: we should stick to string keys. it's just a way to index a member.
Stephan Zednik: we should stick to string keys. it's just a way to index a member. ←
16:31:43 <tlebo> ... Bag of Hurt if we open keys to Resource.
... Bag of Hurt if we open keys to Resource. ←
16:31:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:32:03 <tlebo> ... considers prov-o Dictionary modeling settled. Stable and reasonable. Fine wiht Note and Rec.
... considers prov-o Dictionary modeling settled. Stable and reasonable. Fine wiht Note and Rec. ←
16:32:03 <TomDN> +1 jcheney
Tom De Nies: +1 jcheney ←
16:32:28 <tlebo> pgroth: it seems that the technical work is stable.
Paul Groth: it seems that the technical work is stable. ←
16:32:28 <TomDN> sorry, +1 zednik
Tom De Nies: sorry, +1 zednik ←
16:32:34 <GK1> (I don't understand that mention of "semantics"... by definition RDF has semantics, even if the semantics of a particular construct is vacuous.)
Graham Klyne: (I don't understand that mention of "semantics"... by definition RDF has semantics, even if the semantics of a particular construct is vacuous.) ←
16:32:39 <tlebo> ... the existential of "do they belong" seems to be the only question.
... the existential of "do they belong" seems to be the only question. ←
16:33:16 <pgroth> straw poll: leave collections as there as part of the prov-dm rec
Paul Groth: straw poll: leave collections as there as part of the prov-dm rec ←
16:33:20 <tlebo> +1
+1 ←
16:33:24 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
16:33:26 <Curt> -1
Curt Tilmes: -1 ←
16:33:26 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:33:31 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
16:33:32 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:33:33 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
16:33:35 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
16:33:35 <jun> +1
16:33:36 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:33:37 <GK1> -0 (I won't oppose consensus)
Graham Klyne: -0 (I won't oppose consensus) ←
16:33:42 <jcheney> 0 (haven't kept up)
James Cheney: 0 (haven't kept up) ←
16:33:49 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:34:03 <tlebo> curt: they are a layer above the fundamentals.
Curt Tilmes: they are a layer above the fundamentals. ←
16:34:21 <tlebo> ... it is a significantly complicated, many new concepts.
... it is a significantly complicated, many new concepts. ←
16:34:25 <tlebo> ... likes how it's modeled.
... likes how it's modeled. ←
16:34:30 <tlebo> ... fine as a note.
... fine as a note. ←
16:34:41 <tlebo> ... has no need for modeling prov of collections (personally).
... has no need for modeling prov of collections (personally). ←
16:34:49 <tlebo> ... it's extraneous.
... it's extraneous. ←
16:35:01 <tlebo> ... like them, keep them, but not in Rec.
... like them, keep them, but not in Rec. ←
16:35:07 <dgarijo> but collections are not part of the "core" right?
Daniel Garijo: but collections are not part of the "core" right? ←
16:35:10 <tlebo> paul: take dictionary?
Paul Groth: take dictionary? ←
16:35:24 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:35:27 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
16:35:28 <tlebo> curt: all of collections, since there is nothing in spec that depends on it.
Curt Tilmes: all of collections, since there is nothing in spec that depends on it. ←
16:35:30 <GK1> @dgarijo They're in the REC
Graham Klyne: @dgarijo They're in the REC ←
16:35:35 <GK1> (proposed)
Graham Klyne: (proposed) ←
16:35:41 <tlebo> ... the whole spec would be smaller.
... the whole spec would be smaller. ←
16:35:49 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:35:50 <dgarijo> @GK1 ok.
Daniel Garijo: @GK1 ok. ←
16:35:55 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:36:02 <tlebo> ... collections are not fundamental.
... collections are not fundamental. ←
16:36:15 <tlebo> ... loads of ways to model collections.
... loads of ways to model collections. ←
16:36:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:36:23 <tlebo> ... it is a specialized thing.
... it is a specialized thing. ←
16:36:42 <tlebo> ... like Workflows, not fundamental.
... like Workflows, not fundamental. ←
16:36:55 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:37:04 <tlebo> paul: personal opinion to have Collection and hasMember in rec
Paul Groth: personal opinion to have Collection and hasMember in rec ←
16:37:21 <tlebo> ... Simon's argument that things on web is collection. it's all over the web.
... Simon's argument that things on web is collection. it's all over the web. ←
16:37:40 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:37:42 <reza_bfar> q+
Reza B'Far: q+ ←
16:37:43 <tlebo> ... Dictionaries can more easily be a big chunk for niches
... Dictionaries can more easily be a big chunk for niches ←
16:37:55 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:38:31 <GK1> I agree with Curt ... it's not fundamental to provenance, so not strictly needed. There are other ways to model collections. One could argue that many things on the web being collections is a reason *not* to include them in provenance specs, as we should use definitions that al;so work for non-provenance apps.
Graham Klyne: I agree with Curt ... it's not fundamental to provenance, so not strictly needed. There are other ways to model collections. One could argue that many things on the web being collections is a reason *not* to include them in provenance specs, as we should use definitions that al;so work for non-provenance apps. ←
16:38:52 <tlebo> jcheney: how separable are they? they are.
James Cheney: how separable are they? they are. ←
16:39:02 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:39:05 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:39:08 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
16:39:11 <reza_bfar> q+
Reza B'Far: q+ ←
16:39:37 <tlebo> ... derivedByInsertion etc.
... derivedByInsertion etc. ←
16:39:42 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar
Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar ←
16:39:57 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
16:39:57 <tlebo> reza: for interoperabily, we need SOMETHING for Collection.
Reza B'Far: for interoperabily, we need SOMETHING for Collection. ←
16:40:01 <jun> Mmmm, but the property hasMember has nothing to do with provenance. but I like to keep it because there are a lot of collections on the web, and we provide people a standard way to model the insertion, deletion etc key patterns, instead of letting everyone extend prov in their own way
Jun Zhao: Mmmm, but the property hasMember has nothing to do with provenance. but I like to keep it because there are a lot of collections on the web, and we provide people a standard way to model the insertion, deletion etc key patterns, instead of letting everyone extend prov in their own way ←
16:40:05 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:40:08 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
16:40:10 <tlebo> ... for Dictionary, agree with Paul (too complicated).
... for Dictionary, agree with Paul (too complicated). ←
16:40:24 <tlebo> paolo: promote interoperability
Paolo Missier: promote interoperability ←
16:40:35 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:40:45 <tlebo> ... GK's point is the exact reason to include Collection.
... GK's point is the exact reason to include Collection. ←
16:41:01 <tlebo> ... Dictionary is one type of collection, if not fundamental. Then make it a Note.
... Dictionary is one type of collection, if not fundamental. Then make it a Note. ←
16:41:06 <tlebo> ... what is a Note?
... what is a Note? ←
16:42:08 <tlebo> pgroth: a Note is a Recommendation from our group, it has a standing, but not the full force. Some patent stuff, too.
Paul Groth: a Note is a Recommendation from our group, it has a standing, but not the full force. Some patent stuff, too. ←
16:42:18 <tlebo> luc: no burden of proving interoperability.
Luc Moreau: no burden of proving interoperability. ←
16:42:29 <tlebo> ... on a Note.
... on a Note. ←
16:42:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:42:41 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
16:43:08 <tlebo> khalid: Curt said likely to treat as Collections, unlikely to go down. As long as it's in Rec OR Note, fine.
Khalid Belhajjame: Curt said likely to treat as Collections, unlikely to go down. As long as it's in Rec OR Note, fine. ←
16:43:23 <dgarijo> I would leave collecitons in the recommendation. It is not part of the fundamental provenance, ok, but collections are out of what we have called the core.
Daniel Garijo: I would leave collecitons in the recommendation. It is not part of the fundamental provenance, ok, but collections are out of what we have called the core. ←
16:43:26 <tlebo> ... a Note has Insertion and Removal, then Collection in DM doens't make sense.
... a Note has Insertion and Removal, then Collection in DM doens't make sense. ←
16:43:36 <tlebo> q+ to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.
q+ to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection. ←
16:43:54 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:43:54 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say we have Bundle, Plan, etc. same with Collection. ←
16:43:57 <GK1> If we would pick an existing widely used collection spec and recommend that, I'd be more supportive.
Graham Klyne: If we would pick an existing widely used collection spec and recommend that, I'd be more supportive. ←
16:44:12 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:44:15 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
16:44:41 <tlebo> pgroth: leave collection and hadMember, move Dictionary to Note.
Paul Groth: leave collection and hadMember, move Dictionary to Note. ←
16:44:50 <reza_bfar> +1 for Paul's proposal.
Reza B'Far: +1 for Paul's proposal. ←
16:44:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:45:09 <jun> what about other stuff, like insertion, deletion? not included?
Jun Zhao: what about other stuff, like insertion, deletion? not included? ←
16:45:10 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:45:23 <Paolo> @jun no
Paolo Missier: @jun no ←
16:45:44 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:45:59 <Paolo> @jun really, really minimal. essentially a placeholder as Tim pointed out
Paolo Missier: @jun really, really minimal. essentially a placeholder as Tim pointed out ←
16:46:06 <tlebo> luc: if we take Dictionary out and keep just Collection and hadMember, do we still add their axioms?
Luc Moreau: if we take Dictionary out and keep just Collection and hadMember, do we still add their axioms? ←
16:46:17 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:46:32 <tlebo> ... seems that we'd be adding new realtion to model between entity and xxx
... seems that we'd be adding new realtion to model between entity and xxx ←
16:46:41 <jun> @Paolo, thanks
16:46:45 <tlebo> ... does it mean that prov-n doc is taken out regarding Insertion?
... does it mean that prov-n doc is taken out regarding Insertion? ←
16:46:53 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:47:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
16:47:26 <tlebo> luc: hadMember is not provenance
Luc Moreau: hadMember is not provenance ←
16:47:37 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:47:51 <reza_bfar> Does collection not imply life-cycle ownership? So, something more specialized than hasMember?
Reza B'Far: Does collection not imply life-cycle ownership? So, something more specialized than hasMember? ←
16:47:54 <tlebo> paolo: specOf isn't provenance, either.
Paolo Missier: specOf isn't provenance, either. ←
16:48:04 <tlebo> luc; specOf is related to aspects of Entities.
luc; specOf is related to aspects of Entities. ←
16:48:07 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:48:21 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:48:28 <tlebo> pgroth: we aren't going to lose it.
Paul Groth: we aren't going to lose it. ←
16:48:35 <reza_bfar> In other words, doesn't the life-cycle of members of collection belong to collection?
Reza B'Far: In other words, doesn't the life-cycle of members of collection belong to collection? ←
16:48:51 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:48:51 <tlebo> jcheney: as jun says...
James Cheney: as jun says... ←
16:49:08 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
16:49:13 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:49:18 <tlebo> ... same can be said for membership, if it's not standard provenance, it's going to be part of it.
... same can be said for membership, if it's not standard provenance, it's going to be part of it. ←
16:49:20 <khalidBelhajjame> ack kh
Khalid Belhajjame: ack kh ←
16:49:21 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
16:49:29 <tlebo> paolo: what happens to prov-n?
Paolo Missier: what happens to prov-n? ←
16:49:31 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
16:49:31 <Luc> isn't there an ontology out there with a part of relation? why does it need to be in prov?
Luc Moreau: isn't there an ontology out there with a part of relation? why does it need to be in prov? ←
16:49:47 <Luc> isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?
Luc Moreau: isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov? ←
16:49:49 <tlebo> ... take partOf out, is Note union of Rec?
... take partOf out, is Note union of Rec? ←
16:50:07 <tlebo> ... a bi odd that's not provennace.
... a bi odd that's not provennace. ←
16:50:36 <hook> q+
Hook Hua: q+ ←
16:50:39 <tlebo> ... the provenance of collections isn't in DM.
... the provenance of collections isn't in DM. ←
16:50:43 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:50:44 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
16:50:57 <Luc> q+ isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov?
Luc Moreau: q+ isn't there an ontology out there with a "part of" relation? why does it need to be in prov? ←
16:51:28 <tlebo> hook: python and json, dictionaries and collections are fundamental and primative. Newer forms, they are intrinsic. But PROV isn't a programming language...
Hook Hua: python and json, dictionaries and collections are fundamental and primative. Newer forms, they are intrinsic. But PROV isn't a programming language... ←
16:51:59 <tlebo> ... notional views as data structures as PROV or domain specific interpretations of structures.
... notional views as data structures as PROV or domain specific interpretations of structures. ←
16:52:06 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
16:52:11 <jun> @luc, at least dcterms has it, isPartOf, hasPart
Jun Zhao: @luc, at least dcterms has it, isPartOf, hasPart ←
16:52:26 <tlebo> luc: if there are part_of relations otu there, then why make our own?
Luc Moreau: if there are part_of relations otu there, then why make our own? ←
16:52:49 <tlebo> ... fine to make it i the Note, but on DM with only Collection, why "part-of"?
... fine to make it i the Note, but on DM with only Collection, why "part-of"? ←
16:52:53 <tlebo> q+
q+ ←
16:52:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:52:59 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:53:15 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
16:53:23 <reza_bfar> The issue I see with moving everything into the Note is that implementers start minimally and moving everything to the note is as good as moving everything out.
Reza B'Far: The issue I see with moving everything into the Note is that implementers start minimally and moving everything to the note is as good as moving everything out. ←
16:53:27 <tlebo> luc: proposal would be have EVERYTHIGN be a note.
Luc Moreau: proposal would be have EVERYTHIGN be a note. ←
16:53:29 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:53:38 <pgroth> ack paolo
Paul Groth: ack paolo ←
16:53:56 <tlebo> paolo: taht would make the most sense, as breaking things up it's hard to fit into buckets. left with too much semantics in one.
Paolo Missier: taht would make the most sense, as breaking things up it's hard to fit into buckets. left with too much semantics in one. ←
16:54:13 <dgarijo> Does this mean that we separate it from prov-o too?
Daniel Garijo: Does this mean that we separate it from prov-o too? ←
16:54:31 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:54:52 <zednik> @dgarijo I think so, create prov-collections
Stephan Zednik: @dgarijo I think so, create prov-collections ←
16:55:23 <tlebo> paul: first straw pole -1 and a 0
Paul Groth: first straw pole -1 and a 0 ←
16:55:29 <GK1> I think the comparison with Python is misleading. With RDF you can mix languages as required. With programming languages you can't.
Graham Klyne: I think the comparison with Python is misleading. With RDF you can mix languages as required. With programming languages you can't. ←
16:55:33 <tlebo> ... next straw pole: move entirely to a Note.
... next straw pole: move entirely to a Note. ←
16:55:48 <pgroth> straw poll: move collections completely into a note
Paul Groth: straw poll: move collections completely into a note ←
16:55:53 <reza_bfar> -1
Reza B'Far: -1 ←
16:55:54 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:55:55 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:55:55 <dgarijo> +0
Daniel Garijo: +0 ←
16:55:59 <tlebo> +1
+1 ←
16:56:01 <reza_bfar> 0
Reza B'Far: 0 ←
16:56:05 <GK1> (My -0 meant that I'd prefer to drop, but won't argue against consensus)
Graham Klyne: (My -0 meant that I'd prefer to drop, but won't argue against consensus) ←
16:56:11 <YolandaGil> -1
Yolanda Gil: -1 ←
16:56:14 <reza_bfar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
16:56:15 <zednik> +1 (happy with results of either straw poll, argument was convincing to use note)
Stephan Zednik: +1 (happy with results of either straw poll, argument was convincing to use note) ←
16:56:17 <jcheney> +1 (we can always go back later if there is strong pull for this)
James Cheney: +1 (we can always go back later if there is strong pull for this) ←
16:56:22 <YolandaGil> q+
Yolanda Gil: q+ ←
16:56:23 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar
Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar ←
16:56:24 <GK1> +0
Graham Klyne: +0 ←
16:56:26 <jun> +0 I don't mind either way. but what will happen to prov-o?
Jun Zhao: +0 I don't mind either way. but what will happen to prov-o? ←
16:56:35 <tlebo> reza: daytime implementers can be devious. Will use different mechansism if it's not in the standard.
Reza B'Far: daytime implementers can be devious. Will use different mechansism if it's not in the standard. ←
16:56:52 <tlebo> ... "deviating the product" will be done by different companies.
... "deviating the product" will be done by different companies. ←
16:56:55 <GK1> Overspecification kills standards too --- look at OSI.
Graham Klyne: Overspecification kills standards too --- look at OSI. ←
16:57:01 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil
Paul Groth: ack YolandaGil ←
16:57:02 <dgarijo> @Jun, That is my concern too. Will we have to separate it? Create another ontology?
Daniel Garijo: @Jun, That is my concern too. Will we have to separate it? Create another ontology? ←
16:57:08 <tlebo> yolanda: for Plan, we have nominal concept of Plan.
Yolanda Gil: for Plan, we have nominal concept of Plan. ←
16:57:20 <tlebo> ... nothing fleshes them in.
... nothing fleshes them in. ←
16:57:22 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:57:31 <Curt> prov\:type Collection
Curt Tilmes: prov\:type Collection ←
16:57:41 <tlebo> ... as a compromise, have Collection without hadMember (just like we have Plan).
... as a compromise, have Collection without hadMember (just like we have Plan). ←
16:57:45 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:57:45 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:57:46 <Paolo> @yolanda so we just leave prov:type = "collection"?
Paolo Missier: @yolanda so we just leave prov:type = "collection"? ←
16:57:47 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:58:04 <tlebo> luc: to reza: not suggesting we drop Coll/Dict entirely. Moved to Note.
Luc Moreau: to reza: not suggesting we drop Coll/Dict entirely. Moved to Note. ←
16:58:07 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:58:09 <satya> -1 (Note is a very vague notion and I don't understand how the features of collection can be modeled in Notes - specifically from perspective of PROV-O like Jun and Dani)
Satya Sahoo: -1 (Note is a very vague notion and I don't understand how the features of collection can be modeled in Notes - specifically from perspective of PROV-O like Jun and Dani) ←
16:58:12 <tlebo> ... cut and paste job.
... cut and paste job. ←
16:58:27 <pgroth> @satya - we are talking about a w3c note document
Paul Groth: @satya - we are talking about a w3c note document ←
16:58:54 <satya> ahh - ok, (still -1, collection is needed in Rec from my perspective)
Satya Sahoo: ahh - ok, (still -1, collection is needed in Rec from my perspective) ←
16:59:01 <tlebo> ... to Yolanda: we have Plans, yes. but we have hadPlan on QualifiedAssociation. So links TO it.
... to Yolanda: we have Plans, yes. but we have hadPlan on QualifiedAssociation. So links TO it. ←
16:59:11 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
16:59:11 <tlebo> ... Collection doesn't have an In or Out.
... Collection doesn't have an In or Out. ←
16:59:16 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
16:59:20 <tlebo> q+ to say the relation is subClassOf
q+ to say the relation is subClassOf ←
16:59:28 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:59:46 <tlebo> yolanda: I'd chose Collection over Plan
Yolanda Gil: I'd chose Collection over Plan ←
17:00:22 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
17:00:30 <tlebo> paolo: agree, notion of placeholder to leave open to elaboration.
Paolo Missier: agree, notion of placeholder to leave open to elaboration. ←
17:00:48 <tlebo> ... reza's point that standards hold develoeprs hands for what they can do.
... reza's point that standards hold develoeprs hands for what they can do. ←
17:01:01 <GK1> We should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word. It's easier to add stuff later than to take out mistakes.
Graham Klyne: We should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word. It's easier to add stuff later than to take out mistakes. ←
17:01:11 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
17:01:19 <tlebo> ... Note is not enough.
... Note is not enough. ←
17:01:29 <tlebo> q-
q- ←
17:01:31 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
17:01:47 <jcheney> @reza: Given that we can't standardize all kinds of collections in advance, developers will still be differentiating anyway.
James Cheney: @reza: Given that we can't standardize all kinds of collections in advance, developers will still be differentiating anyway. ←
17:01:51 <GK1> Also, I don't think it's about how binding a document may be, but how confident we are that it will garner consensus from a wider community.
Graham Klyne: Also, I don't think it's about how binding a document may be, but how confident we are that it will garner consensus from a wider community. ←
17:02:14 <reza_bfar> FWIW - I think Yolanda's proposal is the way to go. It avoids a situation where, for example, people will use something like a linked list of entities.
Reza B'Far: FWIW - I think Yolanda's proposal is the way to go. It avoids a situation where, for example, people will use something like a linked list of entities. ←
17:02:23 <GK1> A NOTE suggests we aren't so sure ... NOTEs may get picked up and standardized later if they make sense.
Graham Klyne: A NOTE suggests we aren't so sure ... NOTEs may get picked up and standardized later if they make sense. ←
17:03:10 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:03:26 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
17:03:35 <tlebo> zednik: adding a Note provides a claim to the developer to differentiate.
Stephan Zednik: adding a Note provides a claim to the developer to differentiate. ←
17:03:49 <tlebo> ... "we support the Rec and the Note" - the Note becomes the feature.
... "we support the Rec and the Note" - the Note becomes the feature. ←
17:03:58 <tlebo> ... they can brag about the Note.
... they can brag about the Note. ←
17:04:25 <tlebo> ... Note gives direction that they can move towards.
... Note gives direction that they can move towards. ←
17:04:51 <tlebo> ... Collection with no properties. Def says "has entities".
... Collection with no properties. Def says "has entities". ←
17:05:34 <tlebo> ... Plans as stub, something that refers to the stub. We don't gain without hadMember.
... Plans as stub, something that refers to the stub. We don't gain without hadMember. ←
17:06:03 <GK1> I think if something is well documented and makes sense, developers will use it. Standard or no. I think there's too much hand-wringing about status. But if a spec is monolithic that would tend to weigh against it. IMO.
Graham Klyne: I think if something is well documented and makes sense, developers will use it. Standard or no. I think there's too much hand-wringing about status. But if a spec is monolithic that would tend to weigh against it. IMO. ←
17:06:07 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
17:06:14 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
17:06:22 <hook> q+
Hook Hua: q+ ←
17:06:24 <tlebo> tomdn: if we put into rec, all we're saying is taht there is a collection and it has members.
Tom De Nies: if we put into rec, all we're saying is taht there is a collection and it has members. ←
17:06:29 <tlebo> ... for keeping Collection in rec.
... for keeping Collection in rec. ←
17:06:52 <tlebo> ... it isn't technically provenance, but it IS! If you want to talk about where something comes from, it is a part of a bigger whole.
... it isn't technically provenance, but it IS! If you want to talk about where something comes from, it is a part of a bigger whole. ←
17:07:21 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
17:07:25 <tlebo> ... keep Collection and hadMember.
... keep Collection and hadMember. ←
17:07:27 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
17:07:34 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
17:07:40 <tlebo> hook: extremes of interoperability.
Hook Hua: extremes of interoperability. ←
17:08:03 <tlebo> ... having defined Collections and Plans without ties to them, breaks down interoperability.
... having defined Collections and Plans without ties to them, breaks down interoperability. ←
17:08:12 <tlebo> ... systems will vary and defeats the purpose.
... systems will vary and defeats the purpose. ←
17:08:16 <pgroth> @gk for paq - i think we don't have a ton to talk about - just raising issues that we will have to address
Paul Groth: @gk for paq - i think we don't have a ton to talk about - just raising issues that we will have to address ←
17:08:31 <pgroth> @gk does that make sense?
Paul Groth: @gk does that make sense? ←
17:08:33 <tlebo> ... e.g. OPM, Annotations, key-value pairs.
... e.g. OPM, Annotations, key-value pairs. ←
17:08:47 <GK1> @pgroth mainly, yes. But I'm thinking we should drop hasAnchor.
Graham Klyne: @pgroth mainly, yes. But I'm thinking we should drop hasAnchor. ←
17:08:52 <tlebo> ... 2nd point: Collections and Plans. Should be some constraining factors.
... 2nd point: Collections and Plans. Should be some constraining factors. ←
17:08:58 <tlebo> ... "Creatively used".
... "Creatively used". ←
17:09:15 <tlebo> ... constraining and giving pattern.
... constraining and giving pattern. ←
17:09:24 <GK1> @pgroth ... because the main usecases are covered by specializationOf
Graham Klyne: @pgroth ... because the main usecases are covered by specializationOf ←
17:09:36 <Paolo> @GK agree -- if you propose something that makes sense, that's the best way to win the argument regardless of status
Paolo Missier: @GK agree -- if you propose something that makes sense, that's the best way to win the argument regardless of status ←
17:09:43 <tlebo> luc: editors hat: constriants doc: no Collec/Dict. No constraints in dm-constraints (good!)
Luc Moreau: editors hat: constriants doc: no Collec/Dict. No constraints in dm-constraints (good!) ←
17:09:52 <tlebo> ... not clear we'll converge quickly
... not clear we'll converge quickly ←
17:10:08 <tlebo> ... timeline!
... timeline! ←
17:10:16 <pgroth> @gk hmm maybe we can start that up on the mailing list and address it at call
Paul Groth: @gk hmm maybe we can start that up on the mailing list and address it at call ←
17:10:20 <tlebo> ... taking out of rec makes things faster.
... taking out of rec makes things faster. ←
17:10:29 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
17:10:42 <GK1> @pgroth ack - I already responded to your issue
Graham Klyne: @pgroth ack - I already responded to your issue ←
17:10:50 <tlebo> paul: less objection to keeping it in Rec
Paul Groth: less objection to keeping it in Rec ←
17:11:25 <tlebo> ... withotu hadMember relation, "it doenst make sense"
... withotu hadMember relation, "it doenst make sense" ←
17:11:25 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
17:11:30 <tlebo> .. what to do?
.. what to do? ←
17:11:30 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
17:11:32 <Luc> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
17:11:40 <Paolo> q+ to make a proposal
Paolo Missier: q+ to make a proposal ←
17:11:41 <khalidBelhajjame> +q (can we clarify what a W3C note mean?)
Khalid Belhajjame: +q (can we clarify what a W3C note mean?) ←
17:12:08 <YolandaGil> @Luc: how do you deal with Plan in the constraints spec?
Yolanda Gil: @Luc: how do you deal with Plan in the constraints spec? ←
17:12:15 <tlebo> paolo: a collection with hadMember in Rec, everything else goes to a Note.
Paolo Missier: a collection with hadMember in Rec, everything else goes to a Note. ←
17:12:28 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
17:12:31 <tlebo> ... no constraints in dm-constraints
... no constraints in dm-constraints ←
17:12:50 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:12:53 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
17:12:53 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to make a proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to make a proposal ←
17:13:08 <GK1> My compromise might be: drop all collection-related classes; keep those collection properties that are subproperties of derivedFrom, etc., (as properties involving entities).
Graham Klyne: My compromise might be: drop all collection-related classes; keep those collection properties that are subproperties of derivedFrom, etc., (as properties involving entities). ←
17:13:13 <tlebo> jcheney: does not seem to be controversy
James Cheney: does not seem to be controversy ←
17:13:54 <tlebo> luc: we can move mountains.
Luc Moreau: we can move mountains. ←
17:14:11 <tlebo> ... they restructured dm-constraints and prov-n
... they restructured dm-constraints and prov-n ←
17:14:17 <tlebo> ... but they may be unhappy
... but they may be unhappy ←
17:14:37 <tlebo> jcheney: we don't want it, either.
James Cheney: we don't want it, either. ←
17:14:45 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:14:49 <tlebo> curt: mention the note in the Rec?
Curt Tilmes: mention the note in the Rec? ←
17:14:52 <jcheney> (does not seem to be controversy about memberOf and Collection cosntraints)
James Cheney: (does not seem to be controversy about memberOf and Collection cosntraints) ←
17:15:02 <tlebo> ... increase the stature for an implementer.
... increase the stature for an implementer. ←
17:15:05 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:15:07 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
17:15:26 <tlebo> paolo: if you do it right, people will follow it.
Paolo Missier: if you do it right, people will follow it. ←
17:15:48 <reza_bfar> I'm good with either Yolanda's proposal or Paolo's proposal.
Reza B'Far: I'm good with either Yolanda's proposal or Paolo's proposal. ←
17:16:02 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
17:16:12 <tlebo> paul: straw poll #3
Paul Groth: straw poll #3 ←
17:16:21 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
17:16:26 <tlebo> khalid: what is a Note?
Khalid Belhajjame: what is a Note? ←
17:16:55 <tlebo> ... "you can ignore the notes" when implementing a Rec.
... "you can ignore the notes" when implementing a Rec. ←
17:17:14 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
17:17:14 <reza_bfar> I think the key question is this: "Can an implementer claim compliance while violating a note?"
Reza B'Far: I think the key question is this: "Can an implementer claim compliance while violating a note?" ←
17:17:20 <tlebo> ... they can claim compliance without doing the Note.
... they can claim compliance without doing the Note. ←
17:17:43 <tlebo> (but as Stephan points out, the Note becomes a bragging point for those that do)
(but as Stephan points out, the Note becomes a bragging point for those that do) ←
17:18:09 <tlebo> paul: Notes are less forceful.
Paul Groth: Notes are less forceful. ←
17:18:18 <GK1> If implemented an application that generated provenance with collections that are, say, rdf:List values, would I be in violation of a provenance REC that specified collections. I think not.
Graham Klyne: If implemented an application that generated provenance with collections that are, say, rdf:List values, would I be in violation of a provenance REC that specified collections. I think not. ←
17:19:00 <tlebo> jcheney: one can come up with other collections, but the question is do we require them to implemetn it? (not in a Note)
James Cheney: one can come up with other collections, but the question is do we require them to implemetn it? (not in a Note) ←
17:19:30 <Luc> proposal 1: keep collection and dictionary in recommendations
Luc Moreau: proposal 1: keep collection and dictionary in recommendations ←
17:19:43 <Luc> proposal 2: keep collection class in recommendations, move collection membership and dictionary to note
Luc Moreau: proposal 2: keep collection class in recommendations, move collection membership and dictionary to note ←
17:20:04 <Luc> proposal 3: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note
Luc Moreau: proposal 3: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note ←
17:20:14 <Luc> proposal 4: move collection and dictionary to note
Luc Moreau: proposal 4: move collection and dictionary to note ←
17:20:38 <pgroth> proposal 1
Paul Groth: proposal 1 ←
17:20:42 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
17:20:47 <Dong> proposal 3
Trung Huynh: proposal 3 ←
17:20:48 <GK1> -0
Graham Klyne: -0 ←
17:21:10 <GK1> vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4)
Graham Klyne: vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4) ←
17:21:12 <tlebo> PICK A NUMBER
PICK A NUMBER ←
17:21:23 <TomDN> +proposal 3
Tom De Nies: +proposal 3 ←
17:21:33 <jcheney> +proposal 3
James Cheney: +proposal 3 ←
17:21:40 <zednik> 3
Stephan Zednik: 3 ←
17:21:40 <pgroth> pick a proposal
Paul Groth: pick a proposal ←
17:21:44 <khalidBelhajjame> 1
17:21:44 <jcheney> +proposal 3
James Cheney: +proposal 3 ←
17:21:44 <YolandaGil> 2
Yolanda Gil: 2 ←
17:21:45 <TomDN> +proposal 3
Tom De Nies: +proposal 3 ←
17:21:46 <GK1> vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4)
Graham Klyne: vote 1:-0, 2:-0, 3:-0, 4:+0 (that would be a vote for 4) ←
17:21:46 <Paolo> 3
Paolo Missier: 3 ←
17:21:48 <satya> 2
Satya Sahoo: 2 ←
17:21:48 <zednik> 3
Stephan Zednik: 3 ←
17:21:49 <tlebo> 3
3 ←
17:21:50 <dcorsar_> 3
David Corsar: 3 ←
17:21:51 <Curt> 4
Curt Tilmes: 4 ←
17:21:57 <jun> 4
17:21:59 <reza_bfar> 3
Reza B'Far: 3 ←
17:22:39 <GK1> just take the last number then :)
Graham Klyne: just take the last number then :) ←
17:22:48 <Dong> 3
Trung Huynh: 3 ←
17:24:06 <pgroth> proposed: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note
PROPOSED: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note ←
17:24:10 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
17:24:11 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
17:24:12 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
17:24:13 <GK1> -0
Graham Klyne: -0 ←
17:24:13 <YolandaGil> +1
Yolanda Gil: +1 ←
17:24:15 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
17:24:15 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
17:24:15 <tlebo> +1
+1 ←
17:24:15 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
17:24:17 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
17:24:20 <khalidBelhajjame> +0.5
Khalid Belhajjame: +0.5 ←
17:24:48 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
17:24:52 <jun> +0
17:25:04 <dgarijo> +0
Daniel Garijo: +0 ←
17:25:05 <jun> [hard decision ...]
Jun Zhao: [hard decision ...] ←
17:25:16 <pgroth> accepted: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note
RESOLVED: keep collection class and membership in recommendations, move dictionary to note ←
17:25:27 <Paolo> @jun I have made harder decisions in my life :-)
Paolo Missier: @jun I have made harder decisions in my life :-) ←
17:26:23 <jun> @Paolo, let's wait for contextualization :)
Jun Zhao: @Paolo, let's wait for contextualization :) ←
17:27:21 <tlebo> topic contextualization
topic contextualization ←
17:27:34 <tlebo> subtopic: Contextualization
Summary: The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".
<pgroth> Summary: The group started with a straw poll on whether keeping contextualization in the specification. There were a few negative votes and positive votes and many abstentions. The members who voted negatively were asked to express their concerns. One concern by Khalid and Daniel was that contextualization was an attempt to bring back accounts by giving a semantics to a bundle and the definition was felt to be too complex. Graham expressed the view that it would be useful but in its current form the definition was not clear enough and could encourage users to apply in a way that could possibly break RDF semantics. Fundamentally, Graham was concerned that the concept was too important to get wrong. Tim and Tom argued that contextualization was a way to connect entities and their description in bundles and would not break RDF semantics. A key observation was that term context was overloaded and thus caused confusion. To avoid confusion, the group resolved to rename contextualization and leave the definition as it stands. Furthermore, because the feature is new and it's keen to understand how or if it will be used, the feature group decided that the term would be marked as "at risk".
17:27:47 <pgroth> straw poll: do we keep contextualization in the rec?
Paul Groth: straw poll: do we keep contextualization in the rec? ←
17:27:47 <GK1> are we voting yet?
Graham Klyne: are we voting yet? ←
17:27:47 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
17:27:50 <GK1> -1
Graham Klyne: -1 ←
17:27:53 <tlebo> +1
+1 ←
17:27:57 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
17:27:57 <Paolo> 0
Paolo Missier: 0 ←
17:28:02 <Curt> 0
Curt Tilmes: 0 ←
17:28:02 <khalidBelhajjame> -0.5
Khalid Belhajjame: -0.5 ←
17:28:03 <reza_bfar> 0
Reza B'Far: 0 ←
17:28:03 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
17:28:04 <zednik> 0
Stephan Zednik: 0 ←
17:28:06 <dgarijo> -0
Daniel Garijo: -0 ←
17:28:06 <satya> -1
Satya Sahoo: -1 ←
17:28:11 <dcorsar_> 0
David Corsar: 0 ←
17:28:21 <YolandaGil> 0
Yolanda Gil: 0 ←
17:28:37 <GK1> My latest position: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0355.html
Graham Klyne: My latest position: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0355.html ←
17:29:35 <jun> [I'll dial back then]
Jun Zhao: [I'll dial back then] ←
17:29:45 <pgroth> 20 minutes and we'll be back
Paul Groth: 20 minutes and we'll be back ←
17:29:50 <dgarijo> ok
Daniel Garijo: ok ←
17:29:59 <jun> @tlebo, thanks for the excellent scribing!
Jun Zhao: @tlebo, thanks for the excellent scribing! ←
17:30:03 <Zakim> -jun
Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←
17:32:20 <dgarijo> maybe I'll have to go by then. As I said in my review of the DM, I think that contextualization is trying to do something similar what the accounts were trying to do with the ids within each account. We voted to leave them out of the dm because it complicated the model.
Daniel Garijo: maybe I'll have to go by then. As I said in my review of the DM, I think that contextualization is trying to do something similar what the accounts were trying to do with the ids within each account. We voted to leave them out of the dm because it complicated the model. ←
17:35:00 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:49:22 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aaaa
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aaaa ←
17:54:48 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aabb
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aabb ←
17:55:39 <dgarijo> I have to go. Hopefully I'll be able to join more time tomorrw. Good bye!
Daniel Garijo: I have to go. Hopefully I'll be able to join more time tomorrw. Good bye! ←
17:55:49 <pgroth> thanks dgarijo
Paul Groth: thanks dgarijo ←
17:55:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
17:56:50 <Paolo> scribe: paolo
(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)
17:57:46 <satya> +1 Dani - I just dug out the previous version of DM to state that contextualization is trying to bring in Account through the back door
Satya Sahoo: +1 Dani - I just dug out the previous version of DM to state that contextualization is trying to bring in Account through the back door ←
17:58:02 <satya> sorry, I have to leave for another meeting, will be back in an hour
Satya Sahoo: sorry, I have to leave for another meeting, will be back in an hour ←
17:58:42 <jun> have we resumed?
17:58:57 <Luc> about to resume
Luc Moreau: about to resume ←
17:59:04 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
17:59:13 <jun> zakim, ??P1 is me
17:59:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
17:59:16 <pgroth> resuming
Paul Groth: resuming ←
17:59:54 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
18:00:12 <GK1> q+
Graham Klyne: q+ ←
18:00:47 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: not opposed to keeping contextualization, but do we need to keep it as it is?
Khalid Belhajjame: not opposed to keeping contextualization, but do we need to keep it as it is? ←
18:01:08 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: def of contextualization too complicated for no good reason
Khalid Belhajjame: def of contextualization too complicated for no good reason ←
18:01:29 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
18:01:54 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: it simply adds bundle to specialization, however bundle appears to be a defined context, which is not really part of the def. of bundle in the current DM
Khalid Belhajjame: it simply adds bundle to specialization, however bundle appears to be a defined context, which is not really part of the def. of bundle in the current DM ←
18:02:10 <TomDN> I was going to propose something like: "An entity that is a contextualization, is a specialization of an entity in another bundle"
Tom De Nies: I was going to propose something like: "An entity that is a contextualization, is a specialization of an entity in another bundle" ←
18:02:28 <TomDN> (to simplify the phrasing)
Tom De Nies: (to simplify the phrasing) ←
18:02:53 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: bundle def was careflly phrased not to bring back "account", however in contextualization the bundle seems to define context, which is too strong a semantics
Khalid Belhajjame: bundle def was careflly phrased not to bring back "account", however in contextualization the bundle seems to define context, which is too strong a semantics ←
18:03:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:03:07 <pgroth> ack Gk
Paul Groth: ack Gk ←
18:03:20 <GK1> Why I oppose leaving contextualization in the PROV specifications.
Graham Klyne: Why I oppose leaving contextualization in the PROV specifications. ←
18:03:20 <GK1> First, I want to be clear that I don't oppose this because I don't think it is useful.
Graham Klyne: First, I want to be clear that I don't oppose this because I don't think it is useful. ←
18:03:20 <GK1> Indeed, it's somewhat the opposite: I think it's too important to risk getting wrong,
Graham Klyne: Indeed, it's somewhat the opposite: I think it's too important to risk getting wrong, ←
18:03:20 <GK1> and I really don't think we're clear enough about what we're trying to achieve here
Graham Klyne: and I really don't think we're clear enough about what we're trying to achieve here ←
18:03:20 <GK1> to be sure that we aren't getting it wrong.
Graham Klyne: to be sure that we aren't getting it wrong. ←
18:03:21 <Paolo> GK1: see IRC
Graham Klyne: see IRC ←
18:03:24 <GK1> As far as I can tell, contextualization as currently described has NO semantics that
Graham Klyne: As far as I can tell, contextualization as currently described has NO semantics that ←
18:03:27 <GK1> distinguish it from specializationOf, yet I believe it encourages users to read into it
Graham Klyne: distinguish it from specializationOf, yet I believe it encourages users to read into it ←
18:03:28 <Paolo> GK1: just above...
Graham Klyne: just above... ←
18:03:28 <GK1> uses that could violate the semantics of RDF URI usage (by creating an illusion of
Graham Klyne: uses that could violate the semantics of RDF URI usage (by creating an illusion of ←
18:03:30 <GK1> URIs that denote different things in different contexts).
Graham Klyne: URIs that denote different things in different contexts). ←
18:03:34 <GK1> In the absence of such semantics (i.e. without usable inferences), I can't see any valid
Graham Klyne: In the absence of such semantics (i.e. without usable inferences), I can't see any valid ←
18:03:36 <GK1> reason for including contextualizationOf. I believe this is an area in which we really
Graham Klyne: reason for including contextualizationOf. I believe this is an area in which we really ←
18:03:38 <GK1> *need* formalization and rigour, because it relates so closely to RDF semantics.
Graham Klyne: *need* formalization and rigour, because it relates so closely to RDF semantics. ←
18:03:42 <GK1> If we caused lots of developers to produce data that turns out to be inconsistent with
Graham Klyne: If we caused lots of developers to produce data that turns out to be inconsistent with ←
18:03:44 <GK1> RDF semantics, that would be real harm done, far far worse than the kind of failure of
Graham Klyne: RDF semantics, that would be real harm done, far far worse than the kind of failure of ←
18:03:46 <tlebo> @khalid, I agree that bundles do not define themselves as contexts, and they shouldn't.
Timothy Lebo: @khalid, I agree that bundles do not define themselves as contexts, and they shouldn't. ←
18:03:46 <GK1> interoperability just discussed in the context of collections. In this case, if we got it
Graham Klyne: interoperability just discussed in the context of collections. In this case, if we got it ←
18:03:48 <GK1> wrong, it would much harder to just ignore any stuff that turns out not to work the way
Graham Klyne: wrong, it would much harder to just ignore any stuff that turns out not to work the way ←
18:03:49 <Paolo> GK1: this concept too important to get wrong
Graham Klyne: this concept too important to get wrong ←
18:03:51 <GK1> it was intended, because there could be lots of broken data out there.
Graham Klyne: it was intended, because there could be lots of broken data out there. ←
18:03:52 <GK1>
18:03:54 <GK1> If provenance is wildly successful, I suggest that broken contextualization could result
Graham Klyne: If provenance is wildly successful, I suggest that broken contextualization could result ←
18:03:56 <GK1> in Balkanization of the semantic web to rival the Browser wars over HTML that
Graham Klyne: in Balkanization of the semantic web to rival the Browser wars over HTML that ←
18:03:58 <GK1> we saw in the late 90s.
Graham Klyne: we saw in the late 90s. ←
18:04:03 <GK1> And we should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word.
Graham Klyne: And we should remember that the specs we produce will not be the last word. ←
18:04:04 <GK1> When the whole issue of RDF contextualization is better defined (i.e. we have
Graham Klyne: When the whole issue of RDF contextualization is better defined (i.e. we have ←
18:04:06 <GK1> formal semantics for RDF datasets) then it should be possible to define
Graham Klyne: formal semantics for RDF datasets) then it should be possible to define ←
18:04:08 <GK1> provenance contextualization that we can be confident won't be used
Graham Klyne: provenance contextualization that we can be confident won't be used ←
18:04:10 <GK1> inappropriately.
Graham Klyne: inappropriately. ←
18:04:14 <GK1> Part of the reason that I'm so wary of this particular relation is that I think
Graham Klyne: Part of the reason that I'm so wary of this particular relation is that I think ←
18:04:17 <GK1> it usurps a part of semantic web technology that is being defined by the RDF
Graham Klyne: it usurps a part of semantic web technology that is being defined by the RDF ←
18:04:18 <GK1> working group ("named graphs", datasets and associated semantics). As such, I
Graham Klyne: working group ("named graphs", datasets and associated semantics). As such, I ←
18:04:20 <GK1> think the whole discussion about this should be conducted in the provenance+RDF
Graham Klyne: think the whole discussion about this should be conducted in the provenance+RDF ←
18:04:22 <GK1> coordination group.
Graham Klyne: coordination group. ←
18:04:26 <Paolo> GK1: no semantics to make it different from specialization
Graham Klyne: no semantics to make it different from specialization ←
18:04:39 <pgroth> @paolo
Paul Groth: @paolo ←
18:04:44 <pgroth> you don't have to scribe this
Paul Groth: you don't have to scribe this ←
18:04:48 <pgroth> he pasted it in
Paul Groth: he pasted it in ←
18:04:52 <Paolo> GK1: but there is a chance it will be misused -- (see argument above on IRC)
Graham Klyne: but there is a chance it will be misused -- (see argument above on IRC) ←
18:05:05 <Paolo> GK1: no valid reason to include this
Graham Klyne: no valid reason to include this ←
18:06:14 <Paolo> GK1: dire consequences if we get this wrong
Graham Klyne: dire consequences if we get this wrong ←
18:06:31 <pgroth> wow! i want to be that successful
Paul Groth: wow! i want to be that successful ←
18:07:29 <Paolo> GK1: this discussion should be don on much closer coordination with the RDF WG
Graham Klyne: this discussion should be don on much closer coordination with the RDF WG ←
18:07:42 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:08:31 <Paolo> pgroth: any comments from people who were in favour?
Paul Groth: any comments from people who were in favour? ←
18:09:33 <Paolo> Luc: def can possibly be simplified. the app-specific interpretation in the current def follows a discussion with Satya
Luc Moreau: def can possibly be simplified. the app-specific interpretation in the current def follows a discussion with Satya ←
18:09:40 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
18:09:48 <Paolo> Luc: but that part can be removed
Luc Moreau: but that part can be removed ←
18:10:43 <Paolo> Luc: comments to GK1: absence of inferences for this relation is not a strong objection, there are other examples in the spec
Luc Moreau: comments to GK1: absence of inferences for this relation is not a strong objection, there are other examples in the spec ←
18:11:11 <Paolo> Luc: contextualization is a form of specialization with an extra fixed aspect, namely the bundle
Luc Moreau: contextualization is a form of specialization with an extra fixed aspect, namely the bundle ←
18:11:50 <GK1> Just wanted be clear I feel strongly about this!
Graham Klyne: Just wanted be clear I feel strongly about this! ←
18:11:53 <Paolo> Luc: surprised that it may lead to such drastic consequences as those GK1 envisioned
Luc Moreau: surprised that it may lead to such drastic consequences as those GK1 envisioned ←
18:12:37 <Paolo> Luc: "context" used in a broad sense, it may apply to other elements of the model
Luc Moreau: "context" used in a broad sense, it may apply to other elements of the model ←
18:12:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:13:03 <Paolo> GK1: can't be sure it's not a problem -- but if it is, it can do serious damage
Graham Klyne: can't be sure it's not a problem -- but if it is, it can do serious damage ←
18:13:15 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
18:13:30 <GK1> Can't hear
Graham Klyne: Can't hear ←
18:14:00 <pgroth> better?
Paul Groth: better? ←
18:14:02 <Paolo> jcheney: description of bundle makes it just a container, it doesn't say anything about context
James Cheney: description of bundle makes it just a container, it doesn't say anything about context ←
18:14:08 <GK1> yes, thanks
Graham Klyne: yes, thanks ←
18:14:51 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:14:57 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
18:15:08 <Paolo> jcheney: GK1 seems to need a formal discussion of the implications of this def -- is that needed as part of the formal semantics?
James Cheney: GK1 seems to need a formal discussion of the implications of this def -- is that needed as part of the formal semantics? ←
18:15:46 <Paolo> GK1: that would be better, however the point of the meeting is to decide what's in or out, and this would need more time
Graham Klyne: that would be better, however the point of the meeting is to decide what's in or out, and this would need more time ←
18:15:50 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
18:15:58 <Paolo> GK1: discussion with the RDF WG needed
Graham Klyne: discussion with the RDF WG needed ←
18:16:48 <pgroth> the return of bob!
Paul Groth: the return of bob! ←
18:16:50 <jcheney> please don't call it bob
James Cheney: please don't call it bob ←
18:17:30 <Paolo> tlebo: prov:contextualize is just another property to relate two entities -- all we do is create 2 triples to associate 3 distinct resources with distinct URIs
Timothy Lebo: prov:contextualize is just another property to relate two entities -- all we do is create 2 triples to associate 3 distinct resources with distinct URIs ←
18:17:36 <Paolo> tlebo: how does that break RDF semantics?
Timothy Lebo: how does that break RDF semantics? ←
18:18:10 <Paolo> tlebo: and nonen of those URI are in the rdf namespace -- these are all in our own namespaces
Timothy Lebo: and none of those URI are in the rdf namespace -- these are all in our own namespaces ←
18:18:17 <Paolo> s/nonen/none
18:18:32 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:18:40 <Paolo> tlebo: can't see how this violates any of the RDF semantics
Timothy Lebo: can't see how this violates any of the RDF semantics ←
18:18:52 <tlebo> it gets me over to another bundle.
Timothy Lebo: it gets me over to another bundle. ←
18:19:00 <Paolo> GK1: can't we get the same effect with specialization alone?
Graham Klyne: can't we get the same effect with specialization alone? ←
18:19:43 <Paolo> GK1: the structure is such that it may encourage people to use it in improper ways
Graham Klyne: the structure is such that it may encourage people to use it in improper ways ←
18:20:36 <Paolo> GK1: the danger is of different interpretations of the same URI
Graham Klyne: the danger is of different interpretations of the same URI ←
18:20:43 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:20:43 <Paolo> tlebo: the URIs are distinct...
Timothy Lebo: the URIs are distinct... ←
18:21:13 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#inContext
Timothy Lebo: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#inContext ←
18:21:16 <tlebo> ^^ different URIs.
Timothy Lebo: ^^ different URIs. ←
18:21:29 <Paolo> pgroth: the idea is to relate two distinct URIs but also that one of them occurs in a bundle -- it's specialization plus "this other URI occurs in a bundle"
Paul Groth: the idea is to relate two distinct URIs but also that one of them occurs in a bundle -- it's specialization plus "this other URI occurs in a bundle" ←
18:21:50 <tlebo> tool\:bob-2011-11-17 is not == :bob
Timothy Lebo: tool\:bob-2011-11-17 is not == :bob ←
18:22:01 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: believes GK1 is referring to "locatedIn"
Khalid Belhajjame: believes GK1 is referring to "locatedIn" ←
18:23:19 <jcheney> What if you do this: bundle b1 entity(bob,[a=1]) end bundle b2 entity(bob,[a =2]) end
James Cheney: What if you do this: bundle b1 entity(bob,[a=1]) end bundle b2 entity(bob,[a =2]) end ←
18:23:32 <Paolo> tlebo: (explains the use of inContext and specialization in the example above)
Timothy Lebo: (explains the use of inContext and specialization in the example above) ←
18:23:44 <jcheney> What stops me from concluding that entity(bob,[a=1,a=2]) ignoring the bundles?
James Cheney: What stops me from concluding that entity(bob,[a=1,a=2]) ignoring the bundles? ←
18:24:04 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
18:25:34 <khalidBelhajjame> hasProvenanceIn is described in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html
Khalid Belhajjame: hasProvenanceIn is described in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html ←
18:25:56 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
18:26:01 <Paolo> GK1: what are we getting out of contextualization that can't be stated more simply?
Graham Klyne: what are we getting out of contextualization that can't be stated more simply? ←
18:26:03 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
18:26:28 <Paolo> TomDN: maybe a qualified specialization?
Tom De Nies: maybe a qualified specialization? ←
18:26:44 <TomDN> (which isbasicly what a contextualization is)
Tom De Nies: (which isbasicly what a contextualization is) ←
18:26:59 <Paolo> GK1: the problem is what people may and up doing with these properties
Graham Klyne: the problem is what people may end up doing with these properties ←
18:27:07 <Paolo> s/and/end
18:27:21 <jcheney> can we feed this into RDF as a use case/possible requirement instead?
James Cheney: can we feed this into RDF as a use case/possible requirement instead? ←
18:27:47 <jcheney> (or at least the "inContext part")
James Cheney: (or at least the "inContext part") ←
18:27:49 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically want to qualify a specialization with a bundle
Paul Groth: we basically want to qualify a specialization with a bundle ←
18:27:55 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
18:28:23 <TomDN> because we want it to inherit the same aspects as in the other bundle?
Tom De Nies: because we want it to inherit the same aspects as in the other bundle? ←
18:28:29 <Paolo> GK1: why do we you want to qualify specialization itself, rather than the entity itself that is introduced by the specialization?
Graham Klyne: why do we you want to qualify specialization itself, rather than the entity itself that is introduced by the specialization? ←
18:29:05 <jun> @jcheney, we already did when we presented the XG work in the RDF workshop 2010. Good idea to take what they have at the moment for a test drive
Jun Zhao: @jcheney, we already did when we presented the XG work in the RDF workshop 2010. Good idea to take what they have at the moment for a test drive ←
18:29:13 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
18:29:25 <tlebo> using a subclass of Involvmeent will require a third resource... :-(
Timothy Lebo: using a subclass of Involvmeent will require a third resource... :-( ←
18:29:30 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
18:29:45 <jcheney> @jun, yes it would be good to see how that is handled and whether it addresses this
James Cheney: @jun, yes it would be good to see how that is handled and whether it addresses this ←
18:29:52 <tlebo> prov\:inContext is the additional "fixed aspect" of the specialization.
Timothy Lebo: prov\:inContext is the additional "fixed aspect" of the specialization. ←
18:29:53 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: maybe decompose contextualization into specialization plus another property
Khalid Belhajjame: maybe decompose contextualization into specialization plus another property ←
18:30:18 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: for example, the same idea may apply to alternate -- wouldn't that be another type of contextualization?
Khalid Belhajjame: for example, the same idea may apply to alternate -- wouldn't that be another type of contextualization? ←
18:30:34 <GK1> if it were decomposed, I think I'd be *much* happier
Graham Klyne: if it were decomposed, I think I'd be *much* happier ←
18:30:35 <jun> @jcheney: +1. but how we make a decision now ...
Jun Zhao: @jcheney: +1. but how we make a decision now ... ←
18:30:47 <GK1> @jun +1
Graham Klyne: @jun +1 ←
18:30:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:30:54 <TomDN> very good point
Tom De Nies: very good point ←
18:30:55 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: so contextualization is "parametric" to the property that is being qualified
Khalid Belhajjame: so contextualization is "parametric" to the property that is being qualified ←
18:31:30 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:31:35 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: we could do contextualization for any type of relation
Khalid Belhajjame: we could do contextualization for any type of relation ←
18:31:51 <tlebo> this was my original isTopicOf .
Timothy Lebo: this was my original isTopicOf . ←
18:32:45 <Paolo> Luc: it's the usual problem of n-ary relations modelled with RDF properties. we decided to go with functional contextualized to clarify that it is a 3-way relation encoded as a binary
Luc Moreau: it's the usual problem of n-ary relations modelled with RDF properties. we decided to go with functional contextualized to clarify that it is a 3-way relation encoded as a binary ←
18:33:40 <Paolo> Luc: wanted to avoi the qualified pattern for this
Luc Moreau: wanted to avoid the qualified pattern for this ←
18:33:46 <Paolo> s/avoi/avoid
18:34:19 <Paolo> tlebo: rigt now contextualize is not functional, but it could be
Timothy Lebo: rigt now contextualize is not functional, but it could be ←
18:34:38 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
18:34:43 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
18:35:12 <Paolo> tlebo: re: khalidBelhajjame's suggestion: it would broaden the intended scope of this property too much
Timothy Lebo: re: khalidBelhajjame's suggestion: it would broaden the intended scope of this property too much ←
18:35:55 <GK1> Are we back to doing discovery through the data model?
Graham Klyne: Are we back to doing discovery through the data model? ←
18:36:01 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aabb ←
18:36:13 <tlebo> so, khalid, you're suggesting that we just use isTopicOf with an open domain?
Timothy Lebo: so, khalid, you're suggesting that we just use isTopicOf with an open domain? ←
18:36:22 <tlebo> and range of bundle?
Timothy Lebo: and range of bundle? ←
18:37:01 <GK1> specializationOf and isTopicOf as separate properties would be fine, I think.
Graham Klyne: specializationOf and isTopicOf as separate properties would be fine, I think. ←
18:37:48 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aacc ←
18:37:57 <Luc> @gk, we were there befoer, and it doesn't work
Luc Moreau: @gk, we were there befoer, and it doesn't work ←
18:38:02 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:38:37 <GK1> @luc my fear is that it doesn't work because you're trying to do something that RDF semantics doesn't support.
Graham Klyne: @luc my fear is that it doesn't work because you're trying to do something that RDF semantics doesn't support. ←
18:38:50 <Paolo> TomDN: @khalidBelhajjame: we already have what you are suggesting
Tom De Nies: @khalidBelhajjame: we already have what you are suggesting ←
18:39:01 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
18:39:32 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
18:39:36 <Luc> specializationOf(new-bob,bob) isTopic(bob,bundle)
Luc Moreau: specializationOf(new-bob,bob) isTopic(bob,bundle) ←
18:40:06 <tlebo> @gk1, didn't we address the RDF semantics concern?
Timothy Lebo: @gk1, didn't we address the RDF semantics concern? ←
18:40:32 <Paolo> Luc: suggestion is to separate out the properties, but we've tried that before. Can't replace contextualization with those two relations
Luc Moreau: suggestion is to separate out the properties, but we've tried that before. Can't replace contextualization with those two relations ←
18:41:08 <GK1> You *never* know in RDF what extra constraints may be placed on an entity. That's the open worlkd model for you.
Graham Klyne: You *never* know in RDF what extra constraints may be placed on an entity. That's the open worlkd model for you. ←
18:41:44 <TomDN> you could specify "contextualized alternate"like this: contextualization(new-bob,bob), alternateOf(newer-bob,new-bob)
Tom De Nies: you could specify "contextualized alternate"like this: contextualization(bob,bob), alternateOf(newer-bob,bob) ←
18:42:21 <TomDN> That way you keep consistent in your own bundle, reduce overhead, and still remain the link to the original entity(bob)
Tom De Nies: That way you keep consistent in your own bundle, reduce overhead, and still remain the link to the original entity(bob) ←
18:42:28 <Curt> contextualization is a specialization of specialization
Curt Tilmes: contextualization is a specialization of specialization ←
18:43:23 <Paolo> Luc: in the example, Bob has a new fixed aspect, namely the bundle. the isTopic does not address that
Luc Moreau: in the example, Bob has a new fixed aspect, namely the bundle. the isTopic does not address that ←
18:43:40 <GK1> "You don't know what aspects are specialized in a particular bundle" - this sounds like use of RDF reification, but the original use of of that had precisely the problem that I'm afraid of.
Graham Klyne: "You don't know what aspects are specialized in a particular bundle" - this sounds like use of RDF reification, but the original use of of that had precisely the problem that I'm afraid of. ←
18:44:37 <GK1> Sound is patchy.
Graham Klyne: Sound is patchy. ←
18:44:43 <Paolo> s/new-bob/bob
18:44:52 <Paolo> s/bob/new-bob
18:44:58 <Paolo> (sorry, bob)
(sorry, bob) ←
18:46:12 <tlebo> Tim's modeling of what he thinks Khalid would prefer: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps
Timothy Lebo: Tim's modeling of what he thinks Khalid would prefer: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps ←
18:46:30 <GK1> "the bob that is described in this specific bundle" -- that;'s exactly the problem. bob is bob is bob. RDSF semantics doesn't allow different bobs (with the same name "bob")
Graham Klyne: "the bob that is described in this specific bundle" -- that;'s exactly the problem. bob is bob is bob. RDSF semantics doesn't allow different bobs (with the same name "bob") ←
18:48:08 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:48:31 <TomDN> so contextualization is a means of getting a "Linked Open Bobs" cloud...
Tom De Nies: so contextualization is a means of getting a "Linked Open Bobs" cloud... ←
18:48:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:49:07 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
18:49:13 <Paolo> Luc: yes, it's the same bob in both activities, each described in a bundle. you can use specialization of bob to distinguish the contexts, using two different URIs and then relating them
Luc Moreau: yes, it's the same bob in both activities, each described in a bundle. you can use specialization of bob to distinguish the contexts, using two different URIs and then relating them ←
18:49:16 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
18:49:35 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
18:49:47 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
18:50:25 <Paolo> tlebo: bundles are just sets of assertions, all contextualization is doing is to say that a bundle describes an entity
Timothy Lebo: bundles are just sets of assertions, all contextualization is doing is to say that a bundle describes an entity ←
18:51:12 <Paolo> khalidBelhajjame: but now bundle is made to do more, too much semantics. the two bobs are different because they are in different bundles
Khalid Belhajjame: but now bundle is made to do more, too much semantics. the two bobs are different because they are in different bundles ←
18:51:31 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
18:51:31 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:51:39 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:51:43 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
18:52:09 <GK1> I am thinking that what Luc just said is maybe OK, but it's not at all clear (to me) from the spec. The problem is that the definition of "bundle" says nothing about context. It;'s just a bundle of assertions - there no claim that the assertions are in any way from a common "context".
Graham Klyne: I am thinking that what Luc just said is maybe OK, but it's not at all clear (to me) from the spec. The problem is that the definition of "bundle" says nothing about context. It;'s just a bundle of assertions - there no claim that the assertions are in any way from a common "context". ←
18:52:28 <GK1> "Applications can exploit it inthe way they want" ... that's what I fear.
Graham Klyne: "Applications can exploit it inthe way they want" ... that's what I fear. ←
18:52:50 <Paolo> Luc: the link to bundles is just a general mechanism, which enables apps to then add their own interpretations, as illustrated in the bob performance example
Luc Moreau: the link to bundles is just a general mechanism, which enables apps to then add their own interpretations, as illustrated in the bob performance example ←
18:53:06 <TomDN> linkedSpecialization?
Tom De Nies: linkedSpecialization? ←
18:53:09 <Paolo> pgroth: should we just rename context to something that is less overloaded?
Paul Groth: should we just rename context to something that is less overloaded? ←
18:53:22 <jcheney> -1 -1 -1
James Cheney: -1 -1 -1 ←
18:53:51 <tlebo> http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps
Timothy Lebo: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps ←
18:53:55 <GK1> Renaming might help, but I think the problem is that there's no formal restraint on how it can be used.
Graham Klyne: Renaming might help, but I think the problem is that there's no formal restraint on how it can be used. ←
18:53:59 <pgroth> http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps
Paul Groth: http://titanpad.com/yLqfwp8wps ←
18:54:41 <Paolo> tlebo: inContext --> inBundle?
Timothy Lebo: inContext --> inBundle? ←
18:54:47 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:54:55 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
18:55:39 <GK1> q+
Graham Klyne: q+ ←
18:55:43 <pgroth> ack gk
Paul Groth: ack gk ←
18:56:16 <Paolo> GK1: elaborates on tlebo's titanpad example
Graham Klyne: elaborates on tlebo's titanpad example ←
18:58:40 <Reza_Bfar> A side note is that in the RDMBS world, I think the word "View" is used to accomplish some of these things. So, a "View" in the RDMBS world can be some selective, specialized, way of looking at things.
Reza B'Far: A side note is that in the RDMBS world, I think the word "View" is used to accomplish some of these things. So, a "View" in the RDMBS world can be some selective, specialized, way of looking at things. ←
18:58:44 <Reza_Bfar> Just an idea...
Reza B'Far: Just an idea... ←
18:59:09 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:00:17 <Paolo> GK1: requests that the text describing contextualization be made more clear as to its intended meaning
Graham Klyne: requests that the text describing contextualization be made more clear as to its intended meaning ←
19:00:41 <Paolo> GK1: the term "context" introduced without specification of its meaning
Graham Klyne: the term "context" introduced without specification of its meaning ←
19:01:01 <Paolo> pgroth: we agree that the term is overloaded
Paul Groth: we agree that the term is overloaded ←
19:01:29 <Paolo> pgroth: suggests to replace contextualization with isTopicOf
Paul Groth: suggests to replace contextualization with isTopicOf ←
19:02:17 <GK1> Do you mean isTopicOf(e1, e2, bundle)?
Graham Klyne: Do you mean isTopicOf(e1, e2, bundle)? ←
19:02:25 <GK1> Seems odd to me.
Graham Klyne: Seems odd to me. ←
19:03:06 <Curt> topic implies even more semantics -- it seems we want less..
Curt Tilmes: topic implies even more semantics -- it seems we want less.. ←
19:03:06 <GK1> why not: isTopicOf(e2, bundle) ; ispecializationOf(e1, e2) ?
Graham Klyne: why not: isTopicOf(e2, bundle) ; ispecializationOf(e1, e2) ? ←
19:04:09 <Curt> ispecializationOf(e1, e2) doesn't tie to the specific instance of the bundle
Curt Tilmes: ispecializationOf(e1, e2) doesn't tie to the specific instance of the bundle ←
19:04:24 <GK1> That's kind of the point
Graham Klyne: That's kind of the point ←
19:04:54 <Paolo> pgroth: how about adding an optional bundle argument to ispecializationOf
Paul Groth: how about adding an optional bundle argument to ispecializationOf ←
19:05:06 <Paolo> jcheney: not clear what the implications would be
James Cheney: not clear what the implications would be ←
19:06:00 <GK1> I think that adding an attribute to specializationOf would be better. It suptypes the relation.
Graham Klyne: I think that adding an attribute to specializationOf would be better. It suptypes the relation. ←
19:06:10 <Paolo> pgroth: one option is to keep the structure, trying to rephrase it, and mark it as at risk
Paul Groth: one option is to keep the structure, trying to rephrase it, and mark it as at risk ←
19:06:45 <GK1> I think it's less inviting to abuse.
Graham Klyne: I think it's less inviting to abuse. ←
19:07:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:07:23 <Paolo> Luc: need to ask Ivan about what we can do once we flag as "at risk"
Luc Moreau: need to ask Ivan about what we can do once we flag as "at risk" ←
19:07:51 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:07:58 <Paolo> pgroth: marking it as 'at risk' implies that we can still remove it if no agreement is reached
Paul Groth: marking it as 'at risk' implies that we can still remove it if no agreement is reached ←
19:08:11 <GK1> How not a subtype (didn't hear clearly)
Graham Klyne: How not a subtype (didn't hear clearly) ←
19:08:42 <tlebo> @gk, b/c different arity
Timothy Lebo: @gk, b/c different arity ←
19:09:00 <TomDN> (just suggesting more names here: isExternalSpecializationOf(e1,e2, bundle), isSpecializedInBundle(e1,e2,bundle), ...)
Tom De Nies: (just suggesting more names here: isExternalSpecializationOf(e1,e2, bundle), isSpecializedInBundle(e1,e2,bundle), ...) ←
19:10:13 <GK1> @TomDn "isSpecializedInBundle" I think is problem. Maybe "isSpecializedFromBundle"?
Graham Klyne: @TomDn "isSpecializedInBundle" I think is problem. Maybe "isSpecializedFromBundle"? ←
19:10:15 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#contextualization-specialization
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#contextualization-specialization ←
19:11:01 <TomDN> @GK1: sure, was just throwing things out there...because the name is what we seem to be stuck upon
Tom De Nies: @GK1: sure, was just throwing things out there...because the name is what we seem to be stuck upon ←
19:11:42 <jcheney> Can a q+
James Cheney: Can a q+ ←
19:11:47 <jcheney> oops
James Cheney: oops ←
19:11:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:11:48 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
19:11:53 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
19:12:36 <Paolo> jcheney: which bundle does the result of an inference live?
James Cheney: which bundle does the result of an inference live? ←
19:12:46 <Paolo> GK1: should go in the top leve
Graham Klyne: should go in the top level ←
19:12:51 <Paolo> s/leve/level
19:13:55 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:14:02 <Curt> +1 jcheney -- I think you nailed it.
Curt Tilmes: +1 jcheney -- I think you nailed it. ←
19:14:05 <Paolo> jcheney: it seems we want specialization but in a way that "goes across" bundles, and we haven't thought that through
James Cheney: it seems we want specialization but in a way that "goes across" bundles, and we haven't thought that through ←
19:14:32 <Paolo> jcheney: so it may be similar to specialization, but not quite
James Cheney: so it may be similar to specialization, but not quite ←
19:14:36 <GK1> Sorry ... sound was dropping out - so I thought James had finishged. I'd like to see the semantics after james has thought about it.
Graham Klyne: Sorry ... sound was dropping out - so I thought James had finishged. I'd like to see the semantics after james has thought about it. ←
19:14:42 <Reza_Bfar> James, can you go over it again please? I didn't get it.
Reza B'Far: James, can you go over it again please? I didn't get it. ←
19:15:03 <Paolo> jcheney: so we need to go back and think about it
James Cheney: so we need to go back and think about it ←
19:15:12 <jcheney> @reza - at lunch maybe?
James Cheney: @reza - at lunch maybe? ←
19:15:15 <Reza_Bfar> sure.
Reza B'Far: sure. ←
19:15:16 <Reza_Bfar> thanks
Reza B'Far: thanks ←
19:15:21 <Paolo> pgroth: was suggesting to make a quicker decision, for the sake of time
Paul Groth: was suggesting to make a quicker decision, for the sake of time ←
19:15:39 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
19:15:57 <TomDN> to address the concern raised about the ternary structure: you're still free to use 2 binary relations
Tom De Nies: to address the concern raised about the ternary structure: you're still free to use 2 binary relations ←
19:15:57 <TomDN> this is just an easier way to assert it in 1 statement
Tom De Nies: this is just an easier way to assert it in 1 statement ←
19:16:12 <GK1> I'm OK with a vote. I'd reserve the right to maintain an objection going forward to last call.
Graham Klyne: I'm OK with a vote. I'd reserve the right to maintain an objection going forward to last call. ←
19:16:14 <TomDN> much like derivation is to assert a usage + generation
Tom De Nies: much like derivation is to assert a usage + generation ←
19:16:32 <Paolo> pgroth: we could also have another round of discussion, but with a time limit
Paul Groth: we could also have another round of discussion, but with a time limit ←
19:16:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:16:56 <GK1> OKJ
Graham Klyne: OKJ ←
19:16:59 <Paolo> pgroth: we could also vote on dropping it
Paul Groth: we could also vote on dropping it ←
19:17:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:17:41 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
19:18:24 <Paolo> pgroth
pgroth ←
19:18:30 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:18:39 <tlebo> q+ to say rename and at risk seems to correspond to the straw pol
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say rename and at risk seems to correspond to the straw pol ←
19:18:41 <Paolo> pgroth: comments on what option people prefer?
Paul Groth: comments on what option people prefer? ←
19:19:29 <Paolo> tlebo: giving the recent straw poll, the renaming + marking seems like a reasonable option
Timothy Lebo: giving the recent straw poll, the renaming + marking seems like a reasonable option ←
19:19:38 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
19:19:42 <pgroth> straw poll: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk
Paul Groth: straw poll: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk ←
19:19:46 <GK1> renaming to...? Do we know?
Graham Klyne: renaming to...? Do we know? ←
19:19:48 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
19:19:51 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
19:19:53 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
19:19:54 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
19:19:55 <Reza_Bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
19:19:56 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
19:19:56 <GK1> -0
Graham Klyne: -0 ←
19:19:56 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
19:19:57 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
19:19:59 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
19:20:00 <jun> +1
19:20:12 <YolandaGil> +1
Yolanda Gil: +1 ←
19:20:12 <tlebo> hi, @jun!
Timothy Lebo: hi, @jun! ←
19:20:23 <Dong> 0.5
Trung Huynh: 0.5 ←
19:20:26 <jun> hey, @tlebo!
19:20:44 <Dong> I want it renamed, but not marked as 'at risk'
Trung Huynh: I want it renamed, but not marked as 'at risk' ←
19:20:48 <pgroth> accepted: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk
RESOLVED: rename contextualization (within a week ) and mark at risk ←
19:21:21 <GK1> I would oppose if not "at risk"
Graham Klyne: I would oppose if not "at risk" ←
19:21:36 <Paolo> Luc: @Dong wise to put it at risk because it allows us to get feedback from implementers
Luc Moreau: @Dong wise to put it at risk because it allows us to get feedback from implementers ←
19:22:13 <pgroth> Topic: Primer
Summary: After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.
19:22:28 <Paolo> TOPIC prov-primer
TOPIC prov-primer ←
<pgroth> Summary: After an update on the Primer from Yolanda, the general consensus was that document was in could shape as it stood but to delay release as Last Call until feedback from on other last call documents so the Primer could take that feedback into account. There was also consensus that the Primer should not deal with the PAQ and to keep it lean.
19:23:08 <Paolo> pgroth: question is, do we take it to LC along with the others, or delay so we can incorporate feedback
Paul Groth: question is, do we take it to LC along with the others, or delay so we can incorporate feedback ←
19:23:29 <GK1> I'm going to have to drop out now.
Graham Klyne: I'm going to have to drop out now. ←
19:23:40 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
19:23:50 <Paolo> YolandaGil: should not be a problem to delay
Yolanda Gil: should not be a problem to delay ←
19:24:24 <Paolo> pgroth: primer currently talks about DM only. should PAQ and other material be incorporated?
Paul Groth: primer currently talks about DM only. should PAQ and other material be incorporated? ←
19:24:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:25:04 <Reza_Bfar> From implementers perspective, I think Paul's suggestion is the way to go. I would leave the primer as is with just a pointer to PAQ.
Reza B'Far: From implementers perspective, I think Paul's suggestion is the way to go. I would leave the primer as is with just a pointer to PAQ. ←
19:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: replies to himself: the PAQ by itself should be sufficiently self-describing
Paul Groth: replies to himself: the PAQ by itself should be sufficiently self-describing ←
19:25:14 <Reza_Bfar> Keeps the primer lean.
Reza B'Far: Keeps the primer lean. ←
19:25:20 <Paolo> Curt: PAQ reads well on its own
Curt Tilmes: PAQ reads well on its own ←
19:25:22 <Reza_Bfar> +1 for Luc's comments.
Reza B'Far: +1 for Luc's comments. ←
19:25:51 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
19:25:53 <Paolo> YolandaGil:
19:26:19 <Paolo> YolandaGil: examples need to highlight provenance coming from different sources (publishers...)
Yolanda Gil: examples need to highlight provenance coming from different sources (publishers...) ←
19:26:54 <Paolo> YolandaGil: would add an example of bundle, and thus of provenance of provenance
Yolanda Gil: would add an example of bundle, and thus of provenance of provenance ←
19:26:54 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
19:27:38 <pgroth> ack Paolo
Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←
19:28:12 <jun> Going to drop out now! Enjoy your lunch! Bye!
Jun Zhao: Going to drop out now! Enjoy your lunch! Bye! ←
19:28:18 <Paolo> YolandaGil: nothing about collections in primer ATM. there will not be anything in the future, either
Yolanda Gil: nothing about collections in primer ATM. there will not be anything in the future, either ←
19:29:55 <Paolo> (lunch break)
(lunch break) ←
19:30:01 <jun> thee more issues
19:30:07 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aacc ←
19:30:08 <Zakim> -jun
Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←
19:30:08 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended ←
19:30:08 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, jun, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, jun, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc ←
19:30:08 <jcheney> Quick and dirty semantics draft at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles
James Cheney: Quick and dirty semantics draft at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles ←
20:28:52 <pgroth> is anyone on the phone?
(No events recorded for 58 minutes)
Paul Groth: is anyone on the phone? ←
20:30:40 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started ←
20:30:47 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa ←
20:33:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
20:35:57 <pgroth> subtopic primary source
Paul Groth: subtopic primary source ←
20:36:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:36:22 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source
Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source ←
20:36:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:36:45 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
20:37:06 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
<pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM continued
Summary: the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call
<pgroth> Summary: the group continued discussion on the technical issues remaining in the prov-dm before last call
20:37:22 <TomDN_> subtopic: primary source
Summary: Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.
<pgroth> Summary: Concerns about the clarity of the definition of primary source and its usefulness were expressed within the group. In particular, the relation is not tightly defined. Others group members argued that it was a vital relation to a number of different use cases (science, law) and that it was meant to be defined in a more open manner. The group decided to keep the relation as is but add a suitable reference for the definition used.
20:37:50 <TomDN_> pgroth: Daniel had some objections about hadPrimarySource in his review
Paul Groth: Daniel had some objections about hadPrimarySource in his review [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:38:52 <TomDN_> jcheney: I'm surprised of the use of subtype instead of subproperty. (It's a naming issue)
James Cheney: I'm surprised of the use of subtype instead of subproperty. (It's a naming issue) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:39:46 <TomDN_> ... we're already saying wasDerivedFrom, which can have a more specific type, such as wasRevisionOf
Tom De Nies: ... we're already saying wasDerivedFrom, which can have a more specific type, such as wasRevisionOf ←
20:40:31 <TomDN_> ... we use prov:type for this
Tom De Nies: ... we use prov:type for this ←
20:40:39 <GK1> @jcheney taking a quick look at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles - at first glance, what your describing is beyoind the expressive capability of current RDF semantics. This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see coming from RDF WG for semantics of Datasets (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Documents#RDF_1.1_Semantics), but so far there's no editors' draft of that. I guess you've seen Guha's thesis and other work in this area? Also,
Graham Klyne: @jcheney taking a quick look at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles - at first glance, what your describing is beyoind the expressive capability of current RDF semantics. This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see coming from RDF WG for semantics of Datasets (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Documents#RDF_1.1_Semantics), but so far there's no editors' draft of that. I guess you've seen Guha's thesis and other work in this area? Also, ←
20:41:23 <TomDN_> Luc: you've got the binary relation (wasDerivedFrom), and the extra attributes to specify the association class
Luc Moreau: you've got the binary relation (wasDerivedFrom), and the extra attributes to specify the association class [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:41:32 <TomDN_> jcheney: ok
James Cheney: ok [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:42:16 <TomDN_> jcheney: not an issue, moving on...
James Cheney: not an issue, moving on... [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:43:05 <TomDN_> Luc: Khalid had some remarks about the clarity of the definition
Luc Moreau: Khalid had some remarks about the clarity of the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:43:16 <TomDN_> khalid: but it can be solved by simply rephrasing
Khalid Belhajjame: but it can be solved by simply rephrasing [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:43:31 <TomDN_> pgroth: anyone else have this problem with the definition?
Paul Groth: anyone else have this problem with the definition? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:43:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:44:07 <tlebo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
Timothy Lebo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source ←
20:44:07 <TomDN_> zednik: it's supposed to be a first-hand experience of an event
Stephan Zednik: it's supposed to be a first-hand experience of an event [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:44:18 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:44:34 <TomDN_> pgroth: so is there still an issue?
Paul Groth: so is there still an issue? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:44:44 <TomDN_> ... and/or suggestions?
Tom De Nies: ... and/or suggestions? ←
20:44:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:45:07 <TomDN_> Khalid: can we find another way of characterizing it?
Khalid Belhajjame: can we find another way of characterizing it? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:45:13 <TomDN_> paolo: it can be derived from entities
Paolo Missier: it can be derived from entities [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:45:47 <jcheney> @GK1: Yes, this is what makes me nervous about contextualization. However, what I wrote is very preliminary so far. Haven't read Guha's work carefully but familiar with related ideas in modal logic
James Cheney: @GK1: Yes, this is what makes me nervous about contextualization. However, what I wrote is very preliminary so far. Haven't read Guha's work carefully but familiar with related ideas in modal logic ←
20:45:47 <TomDN_> Khalid: it would be easier to say: primary source cannot be derived by any other source
Khalid Belhajjame: it would be easier to say: primary source cannot be derived by any other source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:46:00 <TomDN_> tlebo: but that's not true, they can
Timothy Lebo: but that's not true, they can [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:46:01 <Dong> I wonder if there is a strong use case to include hasPrimarySource in the DM
Trung Huynh: I wonder if there is a strong use case to include hasPrimarySource in the DM ←
20:46:35 <TomDN_> Paolo: maybe we should find the "primary source" for the primary source definition...
Paolo Missier: maybe we should find the "primary source" for the primary source definition... [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:46:43 <TomDN_> ... (to make sure it's clear)
Tom De Nies: ... (to make sure it's clear) ←
20:46:59 <Dong> because the definition of it seems to up to the user
Trung Huynh: because the definition of it seems to up to the user ←
20:47:10 <TomDN_> ... We could offer a citation for the definition
Tom De Nies: ... We could offer a citation for the definition ←
20:47:17 <pgroth> http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html
Paul Groth: http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html ←
20:47:42 <GK1> @jcheney - ah ... I thought the language was reminiscent of modal logic. I don't recall that Guha appeals to modal logic in his thesis ... it's more like full FoL with rules for mapping between contexts (he calls them "lifting rules").
Graham Klyne: @jcheney - ah ... I thought the language was reminiscent of modal logic. I don't recall that Guha appeals to modal logic in his thesis ... it's more like full FoL with rules for mapping between contexts (he calls them "lifting rules"). ←
20:47:50 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
20:48:05 <TomDN_> "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. " (priceton)
Tom De Nies: "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. " (priceton) ←
20:48:22 <pgroth> ack curt
Paul Groth: ack curt ←
20:48:25 <TomDN_> Curt: tries to apply this concept to other domains, and it seems to fit
Curt Tilmes: tries to apply this concept to other domains, and it seems to fit [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:48:38 <GK1> @jcheney BTW, my previous comment got truncated. The bit that (I think) went missing was: Also, there was an informal proposal from Pat Hayes to the RDF WG a couple of months ago. Â My point is, I think you should be working with these guys to work out a common model, not in isolation.
Graham Klyne: @jcheney BTW, my previous comment got truncated. The bit that (I think) went missing was: Also, there was an informal proposal from Pat Hayes to the RDF WG a couple of months ago. Â My point is, I think you should be working with these guys to work out a common model, not in isolation. ←
20:48:42 <TomDN_> ... Does it accomodate data?
Tom De Nies: ... Does it accomodate data? ←
20:48:45 <TomDN_> everyone said yes
Tom De Nies: everyone said yes ←
20:49:08 <TomDN_> pgroth: consensus is to add a suitable definition/citation to clarify
Paul Groth: consensus is to add a suitable definition/citation to clarify [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:49:42 <TomDN_> dong: what's the distinction between derivation and primary source?
Trung Huynh: what's the distinction between derivation and primary source? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:50:03 <TomDN_> tlebo: depends on what you're trying to do with the provenance
Timothy Lebo: depends on what you're trying to do with the provenance [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:50:15 <TomDN_> pgroth: it's purposely left subjective
Paul Groth: it's purposely left subjective [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:50:20 <TomDN_> ... to that end
Tom De Nies: ... to that end ←
20:50:48 <TomDN_> zednik: scientists don't add as much value to derivation as to primary source
Stephan Zednik: scientists don't add as much value to derivation as to primary source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:51:04 <TomDN_> ... They don't always want to full derivation
Tom De Nies: ... They don't always want the full derivation ←
20:51:10 <TomDN_> s/to/the
20:51:20 <Reza_BFar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
20:51:47 <TomDN_> dong: We're trying to produce a standard, but we don't define this difference
Trung Huynh: We're trying to produce a standard, but we don't define this difference [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:52:21 <TomDN_> reza: When you look at legal documents, primary source is atomary
Reza B'Far: When you look at legal documents, primary source is atomary [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:52:39 <TomDN_> ... You don't look beyond this point.
Tom De Nies: ... You don't look beyond this point. ←
20:52:40 <Dong> +q
Trung Huynh: +q ←
20:52:56 <TomDN_> ... There is some distinction that needs to be made
Tom De Nies: ... There is some distinction that needs to be made ←
20:53:26 <TomDN_> pgroth: We had originalSource first, but the proper term is primarySource.
Paul Groth: We had originalSource first, but the proper term is primarySource. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:53:33 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
20:53:41 <pgroth> ack Reza_BFar
Paul Groth: ack Reza_BFar ←
20:53:44 <pgroth> ack Dong
Paul Groth: ack Dong ←
20:54:00 <TomDN_> ... It's clear anough to use when looking at the English definition, but it's open enough for interpretation
Tom De Nies: ... It's clear anough to use when looking at the English definition, but it's open enough for interpretation ←
20:54:01 <Reza_BFar> is Atomicity the common theme?
Reza B'Far: is Atomicity the common theme? ←
20:54:13 <Reza_BFar> can't break it down further, etc.
Reza B'Far: can't break it down further, etc. ←
20:54:38 <TomDN_> dong: I'm concerned about this openness to interpretation
Trung Huynh: I'm concerned about this openness to interpretation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:55:05 <TomDN_> tlebo: but that is mentioned in the wiki page
Timothy Lebo: but that is mentioned in the wiki page [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:55:25 <pgroth> ack khalidBelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
20:55:28 <Reza_BFar> +q paulo
Reza B'Far: +q paulo ←
20:55:29 <TomDN_> ... it is discipline specific
Tom De Nies: ... it is discipline specific ←
20:55:51 <TomDN_> khalid: it's not something we want to infer, but that is specified by the asserter
Khalid Belhajjame: it's not something we want to infer, but that is specified by the asserter [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:55:57 <tlebo> DM: "It is recognized that the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain"
Deborah McGuinness: "It is recognized that the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and should be done according to conventions accepted within the application's domain" [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
20:56:06 <Curt> an entity can also have multiple primarysources
Curt Tilmes: an entity can also have multiple primarysources ←
20:56:10 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
20:56:15 <Paolo> q-
q- ←
20:56:22 <TomDN_> The name primarySource implies that this is the MAIN entity that was used for the derivation
Tom De Nies: The name primarySource implies that this is the MAIN entity that was used for the derivation ←
20:57:07 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:57:14 <pgroth> ack Paulo
Paul Groth: ack Paulo ←
20:57:32 <Dong> Is there a constraint "there can only one primary source"?
Trung Huynh: Is there a constraint "there can only one primary source"? ←
20:57:36 <hook> +q
Hook Hua: +q ←
20:58:25 <Reza_BFar> I would say that, in a provenance graph, it would mean a point in the graph that has no derivation before it and we know that there is no way we can find derivation that caused it...
Reza B'Far: I would say that, in a provenance graph, it would mean a point in the graph that has no derivation before it and we know that there is no way we can find derivation that caused it... ←
20:58:58 <TomDN_> hook: primary source is usually something that is validated by the domain experts
Hook Hua: primary source is usually something that is validated by the domain experts [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:59:05 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
20:59:09 <Reza_BFar> Pq
Reza B'Far: Pq ←
20:59:12 <Reza_BFar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
20:59:13 <pgroth> ack hook\
Paul Groth: ack hook\ ←
20:59:14 <TomDN_> ... can we capture this contextual element?
Tom De Nies: ... can we capture this contextual element? ←
20:59:19 <Reza_BFar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
20:59:24 <Reza_BFar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
20:59:25 <TomDN_> Luc: it's a relation, not a type of entity
Luc Moreau: it's a relation, not a type of entity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
20:59:37 <pgroth> ack Reza
Paul Groth: ack Reza ←
20:59:39 <TomDN_> ... the context is given by the relation
Tom De Nies: ... the context is given by the relation ←
20:59:40 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
20:59:41 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
21:00:16 <TomDN_> Reza: if there's a discontinuity in a provenance graph, the point right before this discontinuity is the primary source
Reza B'Far: if there's a discontinuity in a provenance graph, the point right after this discontinuity is the primary source [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:00:31 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:00:31 <TomDN_> s/before/after
21:00:36 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
21:00:37 <tlebo> so, sounds like there's plenty of uses for it :-)
Timothy Lebo: so, sounds like there's plenty of uses for it :-) ←
21:01:09 <hook> +q
Hook Hua: +q ←
21:01:15 <TomDN_> pgroth: it's clear that it's useful. But it is left purposely scruffy, to support all these different uses
Paul Groth: it's clear that it's useful. But it is left purposely scruffy, to support all these different uses [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:01:27 <TomDN_> ... Does anyone want it out of the spec?
Tom De Nies: ... Does anyone want it out of the spec? ←
21:01:43 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
21:01:47 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
21:01:50 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
21:01:57 <TomDN_> Luc: As concluded earlier, we should add a suitable definition/citation for it
Luc Moreau: As concluded earlier, we should add a suitable definition/citation for it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:02:09 <pgroth> resolved: add a suitable primary source for the definition of primary source
RESOLVED: add a suitable primary source for the definition of primary source ←
21:02:25 <TomDN_> subtopic: tracedTo
Summary: Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
<pgroth> Summary: Luc expressed concerns that the tracedTo relation did not seem to serve much purpose and that its inferences within the constraints may have not been fully correct, in particular, that it implied transitivity across quite a few but not all relations. Tom and Paul argued that the relation was important because it allowed the expression of a lighter or more unconstrained form of influence that was transitive, which was particularly useful in scenarios where provenance was being reconstructed or stitched together. Paolo identified that transitivity was actually a query language problem and shouldn't be a concern of the data model itself. The group agreed that the indeed transitivity could be dropped. The group identified that the notion that tracedTo was being used for was similar to the role of Involvement in prov-o. Involvement did not have a corresponding concept in prov-dm. The group agreed that the notion of involvement without transitivity was what was required. Finally, the group agreed that influence was a better term. Essentially, influence would act as a top-level relation within the model. The group resolved to replace with Trace by Influence with no transitivity. A further benefit of this resolution is that it improved alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
21:02:59 <TomDN_> Luc: I don't like tracedTo
Luc Moreau: I don't like tracedTo [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:03:18 <TomDN_> ... It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, but people objected to dropping it.
Tom De Nies: ... It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, but people objected to dropping it. ←
21:03:46 <TomDN_> ... The issue is: do we want to infer tracedTo across specialization?
Tom De Nies: ... The issue is: do we want to infer tracedTo across specialization? ←
21:04:14 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
21:04:16 <TomDN_> .. and how does this add up with the definition in the DM?
Tom De Nies: .. and how does this add up with the definition in the DM? ←
21:04:23 <TomDN_> (it doesnt support it)
Tom De Nies: (it doesnt support it) ←
21:04:25 <pgroth> ack paolo
Paul Groth: ack paolo ←
21:04:31 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:04:34 <TomDN_> paolo: Why not drop it?
Paolo Missier: Why not drop it? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:04:43 <TomDN_> ... I would.
Tom De Nies: ... I would. ←
21:05:09 <TomDN_> pgroth: I like it!
Paul Groth: I like it! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:05:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:05:42 <TomDN_> ... It allows to express notions of influence that are guaranteed to be transitive
Tom De Nies: ... It allows to express notions of influence that are guaranteed to be transitive ←
21:05:52 <TomDN_> ... And it's wooly
Tom De Nies: ... And it's wooly ←
21:06:15 <TomDN_> ... Which is great when you try to reconstruct provenance
Tom De Nies: ... Which is great when you try to reconstruct provenance ←
21:06:38 <TomDN_> ... and derivedFrom isn't necessarily transitive
Tom De Nies: ... and derivedFrom isn't necessarily transitive ←
21:06:58 <tlebo> q+ to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns. ←
21:07:10 <TomDN_> ... For these types of reconstructing applications, I'd add attributes to derivedFrom if tracedTo is dropped
Tom De Nies: ... For these types of reconstructing applications, I'd add attributes to derivedFrom if tracedTo is dropped ←
21:07:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
21:07:14 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:07:30 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
21:07:30 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that the current prov-o modeling reflects the right RDF modeling patterns. ←
21:07:34 <TomDN_> tlebo: In prov-o, we have this whole subproperty tree under wasDerivedFrom
Timothy Lebo: In prov-o, we have this whole subproperty tree under wasDerivedFrom [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:08:14 <TomDN_> ... If tracedTo disappears, it would be bad
Tom De Nies: ... If tracedTo disappears, it would be bad ←
21:08:27 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
21:08:48 <TomDN_> ... When reconstructing/stitching provenance entities, tracedTo is useful
Tom De Nies: ... When reconstructing/stitching provenance entities, tracedTo is useful ←
21:08:48 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
21:08:50 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
21:09:02 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
21:10:02 <TomDN_> Luc: I'm not sure that the inferences in the constraints are the ones we want
Luc Moreau: I'm not sure that the inferences in the constraints are the ones we want [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:10:07 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:10:14 <TomDN_> ... and how they influence the definition in the DM
Tom De Nies: ... and how they influence the definition in the DM ←
21:10:50 <hook> q+
Hook Hua: q+ ←
21:11:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ack khalidBelhajjame
Khalid Belhajjame: ack khalidBelhajjame ←
21:11:02 <TomDN_> tlebo: just founded the "Rescue TracedTo Foundation"
Timothy Lebo: just founded the "Rescue TracedTo Foundation" [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:11:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:11:30 <tlebo> Don't Club Baby Seals: Save TracedTo!
Timothy Lebo: Don't Club Baby Seals: Save TracedTo! ←
21:11:37 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
21:11:58 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
21:12:12 <TomDN_> paolo: The reason I said to drop it is that it seems more than graph traversal that ignores the relation types, but when it tries to pick some particular paths, it seems arbitrary
Paolo Missier: The reason I said to drop it is that it seems more than graph traversal that ignores the relation types, but when it tries to pick some particular paths, it seems arbitrary [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:12:26 <TomDN_> ... I'd like to see this constrained more
Tom De Nies: ... I'd like to see this constrained more ←
21:12:29 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-trace
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-trace ←
21:12:38 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
21:12:41 <TomDN_> ... Why are some traversals legal and others not?
Tom De Nies: ... Why are some traversals legal and others not? ←
21:12:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:12:55 <TomDN_> Luc: this is indeed the origin of the issue to some extent
Luc Moreau: this is indeed the origin of the issue to some extent [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:13:19 <TomDN_> pgroth: Can't we have the concept without that many implications in the constraints?
Paul Groth: Can't we have the concept without that many implications in the constraints? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:13:51 <TomDN_> pgroth: I'm currently using it for assertions
Paul Groth: I'm currently using it for assertions [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:13:55 <TomDN_> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
21:14:03 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:14:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
21:14:24 <TomDN_> hook: I fear that tracedTo would inherit semantics
Hook Hua: I fear that tracedTo would inherit semantics [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:14:30 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
21:14:38 <TomDN_> ... and people would rather use this than more specific relations
Tom De Nies: ... and people would rather use this than more specific relations ←
21:14:41 <Luc> ack ho
Luc Moreau: ack ho ←
21:15:00 <TomDN_> ... (e.g. at capture time, when you want more specific stuff)
Tom De Nies: ... (e.g. at capture time, when you want more specific stuff) ←
21:15:16 <tlebo> is the PROV-WG really suggesting that we eliminate a transitive property?
Timothy Lebo: is the PROV-WG really suggesting that we eliminate a transitive property? ←
21:15:27 <TomDN_> ... It's lossy
Tom De Nies: ... It's lossy ←
21:15:27 <Curt> add verbiage to tracedto encouraging more specific terms
Curt Tilmes: add verbiage to tracedto encouraging more specific terms ←
21:16:11 <TomDN_> jcheney: How many of the inferences in the constraints are helpful or not?
James Cheney: How many of the inferences in the constraints are helpful or not? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:16:46 <tlebo> is'nt the organizing principle that it's all invovmenets among Entities?
Timothy Lebo: is'nt the organizing principle that it's all invovmenets among Entities? ←
21:16:52 <TomDN_> ... some are redundant
Tom De Nies: ... some are redundant ←
21:17:23 <TomDN_> Luc: When we designed it, we had agents in mind
Luc Moreau: When we designed it, we had agents in mind [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:17:29 <TomDN_> ... and responsibility
Tom De Nies: ... and responsibility ←
21:17:38 <TomDN_> jcheney: It seems a bit overloaded
James Cheney: It seems a bit overloaded [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:18:20 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
21:18:26 <tlebo> so if we cut out agents from tracedTo, then it's a transitive derivation among entities. "cutting out" Agents is addressed by just adding attribution to the traced to entity.
Timothy Lebo: so if we cut out agents from tracedTo, then it's a transitive derivation among entities. "cutting out" Agents is addressed by just adding attribution to the traced to entity. ←
21:18:27 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
21:18:27 <TomDN_> Luc: assuming we go for this option (?) it will be clearer in the constraints, but does it still support pgroth's/hook's use case?
Luc Moreau: assuming we go for this option (?) it will be clearer in the constraints, but does it still support pgroth's/hook's use case? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:18:31 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:18:34 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:18:45 <Luc> ack tom
Luc Moreau: ack tom ←
21:19:10 <tlebo> just define it as a transtiive derivation?
Timothy Lebo: just define it as a transtiive derivation? ←
21:19:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:19:32 <Luc> ack kha
Luc Moreau: ack kha ←
21:19:39 <TomDN_> tomdn: Do we just want to express weaker relations than derivation?
Tom De Nies: Do we just want to express weaker relations than derivation? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:20:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:20:38 <tlebo> transitivity is pretty useful for: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . }
Timothy Lebo: transitivity is pretty useful for: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . } ←
21:21:13 <TomDN_> Khalid: It seems necessary (more than just convenient) when you have missing information about the activities etc. involved when inferring derivation/transitivity
Khalid Belhajjame: It seems necessary (more than just convenient) when you have missing information about the activities etc. involved when inferring derivation/transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:21:14 <Paolo> traceability with transitivity isn't just giving a name to a closure relation?
traceability with transitivity isn't just giving a name to a closure relation? ←
21:21:21 <Reza_BFar> I see we need tracedTo, but it seems like it's solving limitations of sem web reasoning? if tracedTo is a "weaker" form of derivation, then the main purpose of "weaker" is to be used at reasoning time? and if the answer to that is Yes, then I think the issue is we want to do something that's more similar to Baysian reasoning than transitive (which is binary)... but anyways...
Reza B'Far: I see we need tracedTo, but it seems like it's solving limitations of sem web reasoning? if tracedTo is a "weaker" form of derivation, then the main purpose of "weaker" is to be used at reasoning time? and if the answer to that is Yes, then I think the issue is we want to do something that's more similar to Baysian reasoning than transitive (which is binary)... but anyways... ←
21:21:24 <Paolo> or rather, to the closure of a relation
or rather, to the closure of a relation ←
21:21:45 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:21:46 <TomDN_> pgroth: For my purposes, having it as some kind of "transitive derivation" is fine
Paul Groth: For my purposes, having it as some kind of "transitive derivation" is fine [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:21:58 <Reza_BFar> If I have 3 tracedTo's in a row, then by the time I get to the end of the graph, that "tracedTo" should get weaker and weaker...
Reza B'Far: If I have 3 tracedTo's in a row, then by the time I get to the end of the graph, that "tracedTo" should get weaker and weaker... ←
21:22:03 <tlebo> @paolo: tracedTo is currently an "Activity-less transitive", no?
Timothy Lebo: @paolo: tracedTo is currently an "Activity-less transitive", no? ←
21:22:05 <Paolo> @Reza_BFar: Bayesian??
@Reza_BFar: Bayesian?? ←
21:22:21 <Reza_BFar> I mean there is some "certainty" value associated with the derivation.
Reza B'Far: I mean there is some "certainty" value associated with the derivation. ←
21:22:26 <TomDN_> ... To address Hook's issue with documentation, we could stress this in the spec
Tom De Nies: ... To address Hook's issue with documentation, we could stress this in the spec ←
21:22:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:22:39 <Reza_BFar> It looks like "tracedTo = [derivation + certainty factor of reasoning]"
Reza B'Far: It looks like "tracedTo = [derivation + certainty factor of reasoning]" ←
21:22:39 <TomDN_> Luc: then what's wrong with wasDerivedFrom?
Luc Moreau: then what's wrong with wasDerivedFrom? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:22:40 <Paolo> @Reza_BFar: oh i see what you mean
@Reza_BFar: oh i see what you mean ←
21:23:07 <TomDN_> tlebo: TracedTo allows you to add levels of abstraction (more than derivation)
Timothy Lebo: TracedTo allows you to add levels of abstraction (more than derivation) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:23:25 <TomDN_> +1 tlebo, well phrased
Tom De Nies: +1 tlebo, well phrased ←
21:23:46 <Curt> just derivation, and not attribution?
Curt Tilmes: just derivation, and not attribution? ←
21:24:48 <Reza_BFar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
21:24:52 <TomDN_> Luc: You can just derive a "scruffy"/"imprecise" derivation
Luc Moreau: You can just derive a "scruffy"/"imprecise" derivation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:25:17 <TomDN_> Luc: it doesn't have to specify all the activities involved
Luc Moreau: it doesn't have to specify all the activities involved [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:25:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:25:23 <Reza_BFar> -q
Reza B'Far: -q ←
21:25:31 <Reza_BFar> =q
Reza B'Far: =q ←
21:25:34 <Reza_BFar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
21:25:39 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:25:54 <pgroth> ack Reza_BFar
Paul Groth: ack Reza_BFar ←
21:26:21 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
21:26:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:27:08 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
21:27:15 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
21:27:41 <TomDN> Reza: we need a certainty factor with every generation. (or even derivation, but might be too complex) pgroth: It would be good, but not in the standard.
Reza B'Far: we need a certainty factor with every generation. (or even derivation, but might be too complex) pgroth: It would be good, but not in the standard. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:28:09 <TomDN> paolo: It isn;t clear to me when to use one or the other
Paolo Missier: It isn;t clear to me when to use one or the other [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:28:14 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
21:28:22 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-trace
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-trace ←
21:28:29 <TomDN> Curt: We should add an example for that
Curt Tilmes: We should add an example for that [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:28:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:28:47 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
21:28:49 <TomDN> ... but what about attribution/agents?
Tom De Nies: ... but what about attribution/agents? ←
21:28:53 <Luc> Trace â—Š is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation or responsibility relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.
Luc Moreau: Trace â—Š is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation or responsibility relations, possibly repeatedly traversed. ←
21:29:05 <TomDN> Luc: that's the def we HAD
Luc Moreau: that's the def we HAD [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:29:29 <TomDN> ... If we follow what james suggested, that would become
Tom De Nies: ... If we follow what james suggested, that would become ←
21:29:30 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:29:47 <TomDN> ... Trace â—Š is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation relations, possibly repeatedly traversed.
Tom De Nies: ... Trace â—Š is the ability to link back an entity to another by means of derivation relations, possibly repeatedly traversed. ←
21:29:57 <TomDN> ... (without responsibility)
Tom De Nies: ... (without responsibility) ←
21:30:10 <TomDN> ... But then that's almost a regular derivation
Tom De Nies: ... But then that's almost a regular derivation ←
21:30:12 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:30:18 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:30:19 <Luc> ack l
Luc Moreau: ack l ←
21:30:21 <khalidBelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
21:30:39 <TomDN> pgroth: So we would keep tracedTo as only an inference?
Paul Groth: So we would keep tracedTo as only an inference? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:30:44 <tlebo> +1 keeping agents in.
Timothy Lebo: +1 keeping agents in. ←
21:30:52 <TomDN> Luc: No, that was an adaptation of the current definition
Luc Moreau: No, that was an adaptation of the current definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:31:08 <tlebo> tracedTo gives you an "activity-less" view of everything behind an entity.
Timothy Lebo: tracedTo gives you an "activity-less" view of everything behind an entity. ←
21:31:28 <Dong> but derivations are not transitive, I believe
Trung Huynh: but derivations are not transitive, I believe ←
21:31:31 <pgroth> @tlebo but you can do that with activity
Paul Groth: @tlebo but you can do that with activity ←
21:31:34 <TomDN> @tlebo: but so can derivations, no?
Tom De Nies: @tlebo: but so can derivations, no? ←
21:31:36 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:31:38 <pgroth> derivation
Paul Groth: derivation ←
21:31:41 <Paolo> q?
q? ←
21:31:47 <jcheney> +q to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.
James Cheney: +q to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem. ←
21:32:01 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
21:32:10 <tlebo> @pgroth, but "I don't care about Activity" when I'm trying to draw the tracedTo.
Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, but "I don't care about Activity" when I'm trying to draw the tracedTo. ←
21:32:13 <TomDN> pgroth: I want to be able to assert floppy things, and then have transitivity across that
Paul Groth: I want to be able to assert floppy things, and then have transitivity across that [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:32:20 <jcheney> also, sparql 1.1 will have (hopefully not very broken) transitive queries
James Cheney: also, sparql 1.1 will have (hopefully not very broken) transitive queries ←
21:32:28 <TomDN> ... If that's possible with other things, that's fine
Tom De Nies: ... If that's possible with other things, that's fine ←
21:32:47 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:32:51 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:33:07 <TomDN> Khalid: To do that, we need to change the definition
Khalid Belhajjame: To do that, we need to change the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:33:08 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
21:33:30 <TomDN> @khalid can you put your definition on here?
Tom De Nies: @khalid can you put your definition on here? ←
21:33:33 <Luc> ack kha
Luc Moreau: ack kha ←
21:34:11 <satya> It is a bit difficult to hear on the phone - can they speak a bit louder thanks!
Satya Sahoo: It is a bit difficult to hear on the phone - can they speak a bit louder thanks! ←
21:34:22 <TomDN> jcheney: It sounded like the reason to have tracedTo was the transitivity, so we keep this, and throw away the rest
James Cheney: It sounded like the reason to have tracedTo was the transitivity, so we keep this, and throw away the rest [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:34:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:34:49 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
21:34:49 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to say that my suggestion was to pare down to the minimal inferences for which there is a use case. If there are use cases for attribution as well as ←
21:34:52 <Zakim> ... derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem.
Zakim IRC Bot: ... derivation then I'm fine with keeping htem. ←
21:35:12 <tlebo> If we strip out agents in the tracedTo inferences, we'll then just do: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . OPTIONAL { ?everything prov:wasAttributedTo ?who } }
Timothy Lebo: If we strip out agents in the tracedTo inferences, we'll then just do: SELECT ?everything WHERE { <x> prov:tracedTo ?everything . OPTIONAL { ?everything prov:wasAttributedTo ?who } } ←
21:35:26 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:35:35 <TomDN> paolo: It's really a query language problem (as james just said), not a problem of the model itself
Paolo Missier: It's really a query language problem (as james just said), not a problem of the model itself [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:35:53 <jcheney> @tlebo good point, is there a strong motivation for having a single property naming this query?
James Cheney: @tlebo good point, is there a strong motivation for having a single property naming this query? ←
21:36:06 <TomDN> ... that's not a strong enough argument to have it in the model
Tom De Nies: ... that's not a strong enough argument to have it in the model ←
21:36:17 <tlebo> q+ to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity. ←
21:36:22 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
21:36:29 <hook> SPARQL 1.1 supports http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths
Hook Hua: SPARQL 1.1 supports http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths ←
21:37:01 <TomDN> zednik: The current definition doesn't make it clear that we're interested in the transitivity
Stephan Zednik: The current definition doesn't make it clear that we're interested in the transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:37:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:37:46 <TomDN> ... will think about a new definition
Tom De Nies: ... will think about a new definition ←
21:37:56 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
21:38:07 <TomDN> Luc: We seem to have 2 different issues here.
Luc Moreau: We seem to have 2 different issues here. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:38:24 <TomDN> ... If we want it just for querying, we don;t need it in the model.
Tom De Nies: ... If we want it just for querying, we don;t need it in the model. ←
21:38:36 <TomDN> ... And if we want to assert it, we should have a better definition
Tom De Nies: ... And if we want to assert it, we should have a better definition ←
21:38:46 <TomDN> ... and make the delta with derivation clear
Tom De Nies: ... and make the delta with derivation clear ←
21:38:50 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:39:09 <TomDN> tlebo: the distinction is that tracedTo includes agents
Timothy Lebo: the distinction is that tracedTo includes agents [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:39:39 <TomDN> ... tracedTo allows you to get to every static fixed thing (as an activity-less view) about how you got to a certain entity
Tom De Nies: ... tracedTo allows you to get to every static fixed thing (as an activity-less view) about how you got to a certain entity ←
21:40:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:40:11 <Luc> ack tl
Luc Moreau: ack tl ←
21:40:11 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that tracedTo is currently the Activity-less view of what led to an Entity. ←
21:40:12 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
21:40:20 <khalidBelhajjame> The only argument for keeping tracedTo is the ability to express that an entity may have influenced the generation of another entity, without necessarily specifying the activitie(s) that were involved
Khalid Belhajjame: The only argument for keeping tracedTo is the ability to express that an entity may have influenced the generation of another entity, without necessarily specifying the activitie(s) that were involved ←
21:40:31 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:40:34 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:41:18 <TomDN> pgroth: I would include the notion of influence in the definition
Paul Groth: I would include the notion of influence in the definition [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:41:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:41:57 <TomDN> ... but am not blocking
Tom De Nies: ... but am not blocking ←
21:41:58 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
21:42:16 <hook> q+
Hook Hua: q+ ←
21:42:26 <Luc> ack hoo
Luc Moreau: ack hoo ←
21:42:43 <TomDN> hook: couldnt you just use involvement
Hook Hua: couldnt you just use involvement [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:43:13 <TomDN> Luc: it's not in the DM, but in the ontology, but it is a good point
Luc Moreau: it's not in the DM, but in the ontology, but it is a good point [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:43:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:43:33 <TomDN> hook: seems like tracedTo is redundant
Hook Hua: seems like tracedTo is redundant [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:44:02 <TomDN> tlebo: So we would use something like "Involvement", without transitivity
Timothy Lebo: So we would use something like "Involvement", without transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:44:10 <TomDN> ... and drop tracedTo
Tom De Nies: ... and drop tracedTo ←
21:44:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:45:11 <TomDN> @tlebo: could you paste that in here please?
Tom De Nies: @tlebo: could you paste that in here please? ←
21:45:40 <tlebo> "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved."
Timothy Lebo: "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved." ←
21:45:45 <TomDN> tnx :)
Tom De Nies: tnx :) ←
21:45:57 <tlebo> prov\:involved prov:editorsDefinition "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved." .
Timothy Lebo: prov\:involved prov:editorsDefinition "The broadest provenance relation between two resources, prov:involved is the superproperty of all unqualified binary relations among any two Activities, Entities, or Agents (or anything else). A more specific property should be favored of prov:involved." . ←
21:47:00 <TomDN> tlebo: this is already a qualified relation in prov-o, so the work there is already done
Timothy Lebo: this is already a qualified relation in prov-o, so the work there is already done [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:47:19 <TomDN> Luc: so this would need to belong to one of the components in the DM
Luc Moreau: so this would need to belong to one of the components in the DM [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:47:50 <tlebo> "agents-responsibility"
Timothy Lebo: "agents-responsibility" ←
21:47:56 <tlebo> ^^ NO
Timothy Lebo: ^^ NO ←
21:48:07 <tlebo> entities-activities
Timothy Lebo: entities-activities ←
21:48:08 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
21:48:14 <tlebo> +100 to "entities-activities" :-)
Timothy Lebo: +100 to "entities-activities" :-) ←
21:48:15 <TomDN> pgroth: should we put this in further elements?
Paul Groth: should we put this in further elements? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:48:19 <tlebo> bummer
Timothy Lebo: bummer ←
21:48:25 <tlebo> -100 entities-activities
Timothy Lebo: -100 entities-activities ←
21:48:41 <TomDN> Luc: that would be a bit akward
Luc Moreau: that would be a bit akward [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:49:50 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
21:49:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:50:10 <TomDN> Luc: If people are satisfied with this resolution, that would be ok
Luc Moreau: If people are satisfied with this resolution, that would be ok [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:51:40 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and remove all related inferences (including transitivity)
PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and remove all related inferences (including transitivity) ←
21:52:22 <TomDN> jcheney: We would want to keep some rudamentary inferences
James Cheney: We would want to keep some rudamentary inferences [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:52:39 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)
PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as related two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) ←
21:53:18 <hook> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#involved
Hook Hua: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#involved ←
21:53:27 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)
PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) ←
21:53:38 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
21:53:39 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
21:53:45 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
21:53:50 <khalidBelhajjame> +0.99
Khalid Belhajjame: +0.99 ←
21:53:50 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
21:53:51 <dcorsar> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
21:53:53 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
21:54:04 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
21:54:05 <Reza_BFar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
21:54:06 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
21:54:07 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
21:54:13 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
21:54:23 <Luc> accepted: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)
RESOLVED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by Involvement, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) ←
21:55:10 <Reza_BFar> involvedWith?
Reza B'Far: involvedWith? ←
21:55:33 <TomDN> Luc: so what name will this beast have?
Luc Moreau: so what name will this beast have? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:55:45 <TomDN> tlebo; involved(bla1,bla2)
Tom De Nies: tlebo; involved(bla1,bla2) ←
21:55:46 <tlebo> "involved"
Timothy Lebo: "involved" ←
21:56:14 <TomDN> tlebo: involved(bla1,bla2)
Timothy Lebo: involved(bla1,bla2) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:56:22 <Reza_BFar> Question \: is there a situation where the order\direction matters?
Reza B'Far: Question \: is there a situation where the order\direction matters? ←
21:56:37 <TomDN> khalid: is it symmetric then?
Khalid Belhajjame: is it symmetric then? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:56:45 <Reza_BFar> I don't think it is...
Reza B'Far: I don't think it is... ←
21:56:59 <TomDN> pgroth: no, we would look back into the past, right?
Paul Groth: no, we would look back into the past, right? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:57:39 <TomDN> jcheney: so how is it used in prov-o?
James Cheney: so how is it used in prov-o? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:57:48 <TomDN> Luc: it's recommended not to use it
Luc Moreau: it's recommended not to use it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:57:56 <TomDN> ... (discouraged)
Tom De Nies: ... (discouraged) ←
21:58:17 <TomDN> Luc: maybe wasInfluencedBy?
Luc Moreau: maybe wasInfluencedBy? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:58:34 <Curt> tracedto?
Curt Tilmes: tracedto? ←
21:58:36 <TomDN> khalid: that seems too strong
Khalid Belhajjame: that seems too strong [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:58:39 <Reza_BFar> I think there are 2 different situations: A and B are symmetrically involved -- they are involved together. The other is A is involved with B, but B is not involved with A
Reza B'Far: I think there are 2 different situations: A and B are symmetrically involved -- they are involved together. The other is A is involved with B, but B is not involved with A ←
21:59:12 <TomDN> pgroth: +1 for influence
Paul Groth: +1 for influence [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:59:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:59:37 <TomDN> Curt: indeed, if there's no influence, it wouldnt be in the graph
Curt Tilmes: indeed, if there's no influence, it wouldnt be in the graph [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
21:59:54 <Reza_BFar> So, influencedBy is definitely not symmetric, right?
Reza B'Far: So, influencedBy is definitely not symmetric, right? ←
21:59:57 <Reza_BFar> just checking.
Reza B'Far: just checking. ←
22:00:01 <TomDN> tlebo: seems better indeed
Timothy Lebo: seems better indeed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:00:21 <TomDN> Luc: we would change this in the ontology aswell?
Luc Moreau: we would change this in the ontology aswell? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:00:24 <TomDN> tlebo: yes!
Timothy Lebo: yes! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:00:28 <TomDN> Luc: nice!
Luc Moreau: nice! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:00:41 <jcheney> influence (n): the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself
James Cheney: influence (n): the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself ←
22:00:47 <tlebo> prov\:involved -> prov:influenced && prov:Involvement -> prov:Influence
Timothy Lebo: prov\:involved -> prov:influenced && prov:Involvement -> prov:Influence ←
22:00:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:00:51 <pgroth> the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself:
Paul Groth: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself: ←
22:01:29 <TomDN> paulo: what about contribute?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: what about contribute? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:01:36 <TomDN> tlebo: too agent-like
Timothy Lebo: too agent-like [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:01:47 <khalidBelhajjame> affectedBy
Khalid Belhajjame: affectedBy ←
22:01:49 <TomDN> Luc: and what would the term be then?
Luc Moreau: and what would the term be then? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:02:16 <TomDN> wasSomehowRelatedTo? ;)
Tom De Nies: wasSomehowRelatedTo? ;) ←
22:02:55 <Luc> proposed: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)
PROPOSED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) ←
22:03:13 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
22:03:23 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
22:03:24 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
22:03:29 <Reza_BFar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
22:03:31 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
22:03:31 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
22:03:31 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
22:03:37 <dcorsar> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
22:03:39 <jcheney> +1 (cf dictionary definition)
James Cheney: +1 (cf dictionary definition) ←
22:04:12 <TomDN> zednik: so generation is currently a subproperty of this
Stephan Zednik: so generation is currently a subproperty of this [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:04:27 <TomDN> everyone said yes
Tom De Nies: everyone said yes ←
22:06:31 <TomDN> tlebo: there's a conflict with this concept having some predefined order, and its subproperties (such as wasGeneratedBy)
Timothy Lebo: there's a conflict with this concept having some predefined order, and its subproperties (such as wasGeneratedBy) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:07:25 <Reza_BFar> +1 with Luc
Reza B'Far: +1 with Luc ←
22:07:28 <TomDN> Luc: you would have wasGeneratedBy and generated
Luc Moreau: you would have wasGeneratedBy and generated [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
22:07:34 <TomDN> ... So that resolves it
Tom De Nies: ... So that resolves it ←
22:07:40 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
22:07:43 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
22:07:54 <Luc> accepted: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required)
RESOLVED: replace Trace (5.3.5) by INFLUENCE, as relation between two objects to signify some form of influence, and clean up related inferences (no transitivity required) ←
22:08:08 <tlebo> (consequence: we need wasInfluencedBy with inverse influenced)
Timothy Lebo: (consequence: we need wasInfluencedBy with inverse influenced) ←
22:08:54 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
22:09:09 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended ←
22:09:10 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo ←
22:24:50 <Luc> q?
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:26:00 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:27:47 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started ←
22:27:54 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.805.893.aaaa ←
22:29:30 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-value
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-value ←
22:29:41 <pgroth> subtopic: data types
Summary: PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.
<pgroth> Summary: PROV-DM defines the type of data types supported by the data model. On purpose, it reuses datatype definitions from other specifications namely XML and RDF. However, there is a concern that the new version of RDF will change the list of accepted datatypes. Thus, the current version of prov-dm adopts language that suggests that the prov-dm will be compatible will future revisions of RDF. It was noted that implementers would prefer to have static dependencies for purposes of interop. The group resolved that the datatypes used would be fixed to a specific version of RDF and that all datatypes would be supported. To make it clear that implementers should support all specified datatypes in rdf, it was agreed to remove table 8 that listed some commonly used datatypes. Ivan was given the action to review this resolution and its ramifications on organization and interaction with other groups.
22:30:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: section 5.7.3 of the data model - describes possible attribute value pairs
Luc Moreau: section 5.7.3 of the data model - describes possible attribute value pairs [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:30:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: this section matters for interop; we don't want to re-invent the wheel
Luc Moreau: this section matters for interop; we don't want to re-invent the wheel [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:31:11 <CraigTrim> Luc: RDF WG is still in the process of defining types they will support
Luc Moreau: RDF WG is still in the process of defining types they will support [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:31:36 <CraigTrim> Luc: although we want RDF compatible types but how do we phrase this in such a way that if RDF spec changes, we don't have to change our specs too?
Luc Moreau: although we want RDF compatible types but how do we phrase this in such a way that if RDF spec changes, we don't have to change our specs too? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:32:30 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:32:37 <CraigTrim> Luc: Are we happy with the phrasing in this section and should we keep this table of data types?
Luc Moreau: Are we happy with the phrasing in this section and should we keep this table of data types? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:32:47 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
22:33:20 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:33:26 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
22:33:30 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
22:34:09 <CraigTrim> tlebo: in RDF 1.1 it wasn't about just adding data types, also involved deprecating some of the types.
Timothy Lebo: in RDF 1.1 it wasn't about just adding data types, also involved deprecating some of the types. [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:34:32 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
22:34:34 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:34:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: This table comes from RDF WG
Luc Moreau: This table comes from RDF WG [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:34:49 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
22:35:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "PROV accepts the RDF-Compatible XSD types that RDF enumerates in its own specification" does this mean we limit ourselves to XSD datatypes?
Paul Groth: "PROV accepts the RDF-Compatible XSD types that RDF enumerates in its own specification" does this mean we limit ourselves to XSD datatypes? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:35:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in the chart (Table 8: Informative List of PROV-DM Data Types) we have RDF defined datatypes
Paul Groth: in the chart (Table 8: Informative List of PROV-DM Data Types) we have RDF defined datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:35:54 <CraigTrim> pgroth: need to re-phrase that PROV accepts datatypes from RDF spec
Paul Groth: need to re-phrase that PROV accepts datatypes from RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:36:11 <CraigTrim> Luc: If you go back to 3 bullet points above we say use of full data types is recommended
Luc Moreau: If you go back to 3 bullet points above we say use of full data types is recommended [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:36:34 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:36:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
22:37:02 <CraigTrim> pgroth: suggest if we follow what RDF does in selecting datatypes, we should just say that
Paul Groth: suggest if we follow what RDF does in selecting datatypes, we should just say that [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:37:34 <CraigTrim> pgroth: We are following the RDF spec directly, not selectively choosing from the RDF spec
Paul Groth: We are following the RDF spec directly, not selectively choosing from the RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:39:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: suggest adding forwarding pointer to something that is not finalized yet
Paul Groth: suggest adding forwarding pointer to something that is not finalized yet [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:40:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: standard W3C layer is that we point to RDF 1.0 datatypes and then we re-open WG and re-go-through-some-procedure. We can avoid this by being vague, but this vagueness could affect the spec
Paul Groth: standard W3C layer is that we point to RDF 1.0 datatypes and then we re-open WG and re-go-through-some-procedure. We can avoid this by being vague, but this vagueness could affect the spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:41:10 <CraigTrim> Luc: are all these types supported in the PROV-O?
Luc Moreau: are all these types supported in the PROV-O? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:41:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:42:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: In the data types section there is a notion of data type maps - is this relevant to us?
Luc Moreau: In the data types section there is a notion of data type maps - is this relevant to us? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:42:36 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes ←
22:45:17 <CraigTrim> Luc: How is i18n supported in XML for strings?
Luc Moreau: How is i18n supported in XML for strings? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:45:20 <tlebo> "A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document"
Timothy Lebo: "A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document" ←
22:45:28 <tlebo> 2.12 Language Identification
Timothy Lebo: 2.12 Language Identification ←
22:45:41 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ ←
22:45:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: you can put xml:lang on any element and leverage inheritance
Paul Groth: you can put xml:lang on any element and leverage inheritance [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:46:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
22:46:36 <CraigTrim> pgroth: proposal is to be completely dependent on RDF datatypes w/no exceptions.
Paul Groth: proposal is to be completely dependent on RDF datatypes w/no exceptions. [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:47:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we might have informative content in our document and recommended content in RDF spec
Paul Groth: we might have informative content in our document and recommended content in RDF spec [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:49:34 <CraigTrim> tlebo: we only use common datatypes (URL, int, string, dateTime) in examples, so change should not impact us
Timothy Lebo: we only use common datatypes (URL, int, string, dateTime) in examples, so change should not impact us [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:49:48 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in favour of removing whole table
Paul Groth: in favour of removing whole table [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:50:03 <CraigTrim> Curt: hot link into other document - if people want to see it, they can see it
Curt Tilmes: hot link into other document - if people want to see it, they can see it [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:51:28 <reza_bfar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
22:51:30 <CraigTrim> Dong: second that we link into spec - interopt is key
Trung Huynh: second that we link into spec - interopt is key [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:51:56 <reza_bfar> I prefer static dependencies over dynamic dependencies, but if Ivan says we can't do that, then it is what it is.
Reza B'Far: I prefer static dependencies over dynamic dependencies, but if Ivan says we can't do that, then it is what it is. ←
22:52:09 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar
Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar ←
22:52:15 <CraigTrim> reza_bfar: from software pov we don't want dynamic dependencies
Reza B'Far: from software pov we don't want dynamic dependencies [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:52:57 <CraigTrim> pgroth: seems to be consensus that we prefer linking to specific datatype doc that already exists
Paul Groth: seems to be consensus that we prefer linking to specific datatype doc that already exists [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:53:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we should go back to Ivan and work out a process with RDF wg
Paul Groth: we should go back to Ivan and work out a process with RDF wg [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:54:01 <reza_bfar> +q
Reza B'Far: +q ←
22:54:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Ivan prefers not to change any document after it becomes a rec (a new charter is needed even for minor changes)
Paul Groth: Ivan prefers not to change any document after it becomes a rec (a new charter is needed even for minor changes) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:54:52 <reza_bfar> Isn't RDF 1.1 going to be backwards compatible to 1.0?
Reza B'Far: Isn't RDF 1.1 going to be backwards compatible to 1.0? ←
22:55:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: there will be more types supported in 1.1
Luc Moreau: there will be more types supported in 1.1 [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:55:42 <CraigTrim> tlebo: they have also discussed deprecating existing types
Timothy Lebo: they have also discussed deprecating existing types [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:56:10 <reza_bfar> I guess it all depends on what deprecation means.
Reza B'Far: I guess it all depends on what deprecation means. ←
22:56:25 <reza_bfar> If it means that it's indefinitely deprecated, but included, then we still don't have an issue.
Reza B'Far: If it means that it's indefinitely deprecated, but included, then we still don't have an issue. ←
22:56:32 <CraigTrim> Luc: suggest we endorse recommendation that PROV should support all types in concrete version of RDF
Luc Moreau: suggest we endorse recommendation that PROV should support all types in concrete version of RDF [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
22:56:36 <reza_bfar> but if it means that it's in preparation for future exclusion, then there is a problem
Reza B'Far: but if it means that it's in preparation for future exclusion, then there is a problem ←
22:56:36 <pgroth> proposed: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF
PROPOSED: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF ←
22:56:40 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
22:56:44 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
22:56:46 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
22:56:46 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
22:56:48 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
22:56:49 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
22:56:49 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
22:56:52 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
22:57:05 <pgroth> accepted: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF
RESOLVED: prov should adopt all the types a specific version of RDF ←
22:57:18 <pgroth> proposed: remove table 8 from prov-dm
PROPOSED: remove table 8 from prov-dm ←
22:57:20 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
22:57:21 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
22:57:23 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
22:57:23 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
22:57:25 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
22:57:25 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
22:57:27 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
22:57:27 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
22:57:27 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
22:57:29 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
22:57:36 <pgroth> accepted: remove table 8 from prov-dm
RESOLVED: remove table 8 from prov-dm ←
22:58:55 <pgroth> action: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications?
ACTION: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? ←
22:58:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-93 - Look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-29]. ←
22:59:31 <pgroth> subtopic: incompatibility prov-dm and prov-o and moving to last call
Summary: Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.
<pgroth> Summary: Prov-o and prov-dm were incompatible for the relation prov:location because prov-o defined an open domain for location whereas prov-dm defined a closed domain. It was agreed to have a closed domain for hadLocation but to expand that domain to include not only entity, activity but also agent and instantaneous events.
23:00:14 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-location
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-attribute-location ←
23:00:45 <tlebo> "The attribute prov:location is an optional attribute of entity, activity, usage, and generation."
Timothy Lebo: "The attribute prov:location is an optional attribute of entity, activity, usage, and generation." ←
23:01:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: how do we reconcile PROV-O and PROV-DM here
Luc Moreau: how do we reconcile PROV-O and PROV-DM here [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:01:25 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components ←
23:01:53 <CraigTrim> Luc: look at overview table 4 in section 5 - supported relations are indicated
Luc Moreau: look at overview table 4 in section 5 - supported relations are indicated [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:02:26 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:02:39 <reza_bfar> -q
Reza B'Far: -q ←
23:02:40 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar
Paul Groth: ack reza_bfar ←
23:02:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: not sure why have location on ActedOnBehalfOf and WasAttributedTo
Luc Moreau: not sure why have location on ActedOnBehalfOf and WasAttributedTo [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:02:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:02:59 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
23:03:06 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
23:04:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I was associated with PROV F2F mtg in SB vs someone in Ohio - so location we are associated with is different
Paul Groth: I was associated with PROV F2F mtg in SB vs someone in Ohio - so location we are associated with is different [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:04:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
23:04:48 <CraigTrim> tlebo: PROV-O has open domain for atLocation
Timothy Lebo: PROV-O has open domain for atLocation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:05:54 <CraigTrim> tlebo: preferred to leave open to avoid actively excluding, but closing with union may be tidy
Timothy Lebo: preferred to leave open to avoid actively excluding, but closing with union may be tidy [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:06:02 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:06:07 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
23:06:54 <reza_bfar> I agree with Tim there. Extending ontologies is supposed to be for further specialization not generalization
Reza B'Far: I agree with Tim there. Extending ontologies is supposed to be for further specialization not generalization ←
23:06:55 <CraigTrim> tlebo: seems odd for interopt effort to not take broader approach
Timothy Lebo: seems odd for interopt effort to not take broader approach [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:07:01 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:08:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: reason to constrain Ontology is to give enriched semantics
Paul Groth: reason to constrain Ontology is to give enriched semantics [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:08:54 <CraigTrim> pgroth: to constrain doesn't seem to help interopt in this case because we gain no enriched semantics
Paul Groth: to constrain doesn't seem to help interopt in this case because we gain no enriched semantics [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:10:03 <CraigTrim> tlebo: is there a popular vocabulary that gives location?
Timothy Lebo: is there a popular vocabulary that gives location? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:10:21 <CraigTrim> pgroth: yes, but only for particular kinds of location
Paul Groth: yes, but only for particular kinds of location [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:11:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: just put location on classes in model (location on entity, agent, activity) or open up completely (including qualified relations)
Paul Groth: just put location on classes in model (location on entity, agent, activity) or open up completely (including qualified relations) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:11:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: alt is to pick and choose relations
Paul Groth: alt is to pick and choose relations [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:11:55 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:12:31 <CraigTrim> tlebo: alt set domain of atLocation to top level of all our classes
Timothy Lebo: alt set domain of atLocation to top level of all our classes [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:13:03 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
23:13:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:13:11 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
23:13:43 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
23:14:16 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
23:15:00 <CraigTrim> zednik: suggest agent entity activity and instantaneous event
Stephan Zednik: suggest agent entity activity and instantaneous event [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:15:31 <CraigTrim> tlebo: union of these four is domain of atLocatoin
Timothy Lebo: union of these four is domain of atLocatoin [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:15:51 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in order to say locatoin of agent, you have to make agent an entity?
Paul Groth: in order to say locatoin of agent, you have to make agent an entity? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:15:54 <CraigTrim> tlebo: yes...
Timothy Lebo: yes... [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:16:37 <CraigTrim> pgroth: not just a map; every kind of location
Paul Groth: not just a map; every kind of location [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:17:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: what does this leave out?
Paul Groth: what does this leave out? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:17:57 <pgroth> proposed: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event
PROPOSED: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event ←
23:18:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so we can't say "was derived from at activity"
Paul Groth: so we can't say "was derived from at activity" [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:18:08 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
23:18:08 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
23:18:08 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
23:18:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
23:18:11 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
23:18:12 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
23:18:12 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
23:18:12 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
23:18:15 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
23:18:19 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
23:18:32 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
23:18:38 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
23:18:38 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
23:18:46 <pgroth> accepted: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event
RESOLVED: the domain of hadLocation is the union entity, activity, agent and instantaneous event ←
23:19:03 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
23:19:58 <CraigTrim> Luc: in terms of reconciling PROV-DM and PROV-O - properties of atLocation
Luc Moreau: in terms of reconciling PROV-DM and PROV-O - properties of atLocation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:21:46 <Curt> I am not my name
Curt Tilmes: I am not my name ←
23:22:35 <CraigTrim> pgroth: any other issues on PROV-DM? bring up now ...
Paul Groth: any other issues on PROV-DM? bring up now ... [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:22:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:22:53 <satya> sorry, I have to leave now - will join in tomorrow
Satya Sahoo: sorry, I have to leave now - will join in tomorrow ←
<pgroth> Topic: Last Call Straw Poll
Summary: The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.
<pgroth> Summary: The group took a straw poll on the release of PROV-DM and and PROV-O as last call after all discussed changes technical changes were made. There was unanimous support.
23:23:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: can't vote on going to last call right now, but prefer straw poll given decisions made today on various technical issues will we move to last call once these are implemented?
Paul Groth: can't vote on going to last call right now, but prefer straw poll given decisions made today on various technical issues will we move to last call once these are implemented? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:23:22 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
23:24:14 <pgroth> straw poll: move to last call if all resolutions on the listed technical issues identified at F2F3 are implemented
Paul Groth: straw poll: move to last call if all resolutions on the listed technical issues identified at F2F3 are implemented ←
23:24:21 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
23:24:22 <reza_bfar> +1
Reza B'Far: +1 ←
23:24:22 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
23:24:25 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
23:24:25 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
23:24:25 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
23:24:27 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
23:24:29 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
23:24:37 <jcheney> q+ to ask about where we left ctx'n
James Cheney: q+ to ask about where we left ctx'n ←
23:24:42 <Paolo> I agree!
I agree! ←
23:25:03 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
23:25:10 <CraigTrim> jcheney: was ctx'n left at renaming and change to definition?
James Cheney: was ctx'n left at renaming and change to definition? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:25:16 <CraigTrim> pgroth: confirmed, plus marking as at risk
Paul Groth: confirmed, plus marking as at risk [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:26:48 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
Summary: The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed what was remaining to be left on prov-o. The focus was on ensuring that the ontology was up to date with the data model and more needs to be done on the narrative. A discussion was had on whether the constraints as defined by the prov-constraints document should be encoded in prov-o. It was noted both that the constraints document was still under some flux and that that prov-o should support anything that was compliant with prov-dm. The group resolved that constraints that do not appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in prov-o.
23:26:51 <CraigTrim> Luc: what do we need to do to get to last call on PROV-O?
Luc Moreau: what do we need to do to get to last call on PROV-O? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:27:07 <CraigTrim> tlebo: will release a document for internal review
Timothy Lebo: will release a document for internal review [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:27:47 <CraigTrim> tlebo: work up to yesterday's deadline was making modifications to Ontology for ctx'n and back-checking all examples to fill in re-names
Timothy Lebo: work up to yesterday's deadline was making modifications to Ontology for ctx'n and back-checking all examples to fill in re-names [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:28:22 <CraigTrim> tlebo: the narrative hasn't moved, couple issues to incorporate - principally fixing DM moves progress on PROV-O
Timothy Lebo: the narrative hasn't moved, couple issues to incorporate - principally fixing DM moves progress on PROV-O [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:28:37 <CraigTrim> tlebo: beyond that making sure constructs (terms) are discussed within narrative
Timothy Lebo: beyond that making sure constructs (terms) are discussed within narrative [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:28:40 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:28:47 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
23:28:47 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask about where we left ctx'n
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask about where we left ctx'n ←
23:29:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have agreed on number of changes in DM today which will be added back into Ontology
Luc Moreau: we have agreed on number of changes in DM today which will be added back into Ontology [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:29:48 <jcheney> q+ to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)
James Cheney: q+ to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles) ←
23:30:04 <CraigTrim> tlebo: timetable is July 13th
Timothy Lebo: timetable is July 13th [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:31:48 <CraigTrim> Luc: can we add additional resources to expedite timetable
Luc Moreau: can we add additional resources to expedite timetable [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:32:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: July 13th as internal release date compresses remaining timeframe
Luc Moreau: July 13th as internal release date compresses remaining timeframe [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:32:40 <CraigTrim> Luc: We want sync'd release of PROV-DM and PROV-O
Luc Moreau: We want sync'd release of PROV-DM and PROV-O [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:32:52 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
23:33:06 <CraigTrim> jcheney: how much work remains?
Stephan Zednik: how much work remains? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:33:19 <jcheney> That's not me :)
James Cheney: That's not me :) ←
23:33:28 <jcheney> (it's zednik)
James Cheney: (it's zednik) ←
23:33:32 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim: my bad
Craig Trim: my bad [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:33:49 <pgroth> s/jcheney/zednik/
23:34:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:34:33 <CraigTrim> tlebo: todo list is number of constructs in Ontology, and if construct is not mentioned in narrative, it is remaining work
Timothy Lebo: todo list is number of constructs in Ontology, and if construct is not mentioned in narrative, it is remaining work [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:34:44 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
23:34:44 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles)
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask if prov-rdf wiki page is still relevant (e.g. it doesn't mention ctx'n or bundles) ←
23:36:17 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we can go to last call with less than polished narrative as long as Ontology is fixed
Paul Groth: we can go to last call with less than polished narrative as long as Ontology is fixed [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:36:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: when can we get a fixed Ontology and who will help with narrative
Paul Groth: when can we get a fixed Ontology and who will help with narrative [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:36:45 <CraigTrim> pgroth: but if Ontology is done and narrative lags, we should keep moving ahead
Paul Groth: but if Ontology is done and narrative lags, we should keep moving ahead [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:37:07 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:37:11 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
23:37:13 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
23:37:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: are there volunteers to work with tlebo?
Luc Moreau: are there volunteers to work with tlebo? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:38:01 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
23:38:45 <zednik> I can work with Tim on prov-o
Stephan Zednik: I can work with Tim on prov-o ←
23:39:37 <CraigTrim> Luc: if parties that can contribute time specify when we can work out timetable based on availability
Luc Moreau: if parties that can contribute time specify when we can work out timetable based on availability [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:41:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:42:14 <CraigTrim> Luc: anything else we can discuss about PROV-O in order to get to last call?
Luc Moreau: anything else we can discuss about PROV-O in order to get to last call? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:42:49 <CraigTrim> tlebo: one aspect not personally focused on is property type (irreflexive, functional, etc)
Timothy Lebo: one aspect not personally focused on is property type (irreflexive, functional, etc) [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:43:18 <CraigTrim> tlebo: concerned about some constraints documents but no specific examples to raise
Timothy Lebo: concerned about some constraints documents but no specific examples to raise [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:46:39 <Luc> q+ to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance
Luc Moreau: q+ to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance ←
23:48:29 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
23:48:35 <Luc> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
23:48:35 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance
Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, you wanted to ask if prov-o is about scruffy or proper provenance ←
23:49:45 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:49:51 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
23:49:53 <CraigTrim> pgroth: constraints can be implemented in a variety of methods, but Ontology should remain scruffy
Paul Groth: constraints can be implemented in a variety of methods, but Ontology should remain scruffy [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:49:58 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
23:50:24 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
23:50:28 <Luc> ack ze
Luc Moreau: ack ze ←
23:50:34 <CraigTrim> zednik: are constraints part of recommendation?
Stephan Zednik: are constraints part of recommendation? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:50:42 <CraigTrim> Luc: forms a separate recommendation
Luc Moreau: forms a separate recommendation [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:51:05 <jcheney> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#compliance
James Cheney: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#compliance ←
23:51:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: eg. "in order to validate PROV the following constraints should be satisfied..."
Luc Moreau: eg. "in order to validate PROV the following constraints should be satisfied..." [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:51:41 <Paulo> q+
23:52:19 <CraigTrim> jcheney: several reviewers have noted document lacked clarity in past around compliance w/respect to constraints
James Cheney: several reviewers have noted document lacked clarity in past around compliance w/respect to constraints [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:52:27 <Luc> ack pau
Luc Moreau: ack pau ←
23:55:21 <Paulo> q+
23:57:19 <CraigTrim> Luc: is it a resolution of this meeting that the constraints should not be put in the ontology?
Luc Moreau: is it a resolution of this meeting that the constraints should not be put in the ontology? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:57:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:57:28 <CraigTrim> tlebo: does that include the subProperty hierarchy?
Timothy Lebo: does that include the subProperty hierarchy? [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:57:30 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
23:57:34 <Luc> ack pau
Luc Moreau: ack pau ←
23:58:40 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
23:58:44 <CraigTrim> Paulo: we want to make sure people have certain level of correctness when generating PROV
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we want to make sure people have certain level of correctness when generating PROV [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:58:54 <tlebo> q+ to ask if prov-o loses its subproperty hierarchy in b/c of a strict "DM-only, no prov-constraints!" encoding.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask if prov-o loses its subproperty hierarchy in b/c of a strict "DM-only, no prov-constraints!" encoding. ←
23:58:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
23:59:11 <CraigTrim> Paulo: don't think we can provide PROV validator, but should have some level of syntax checking
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: don't think we can provide PROV validator, but should have some level of syntax checking [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:59:29 <CraigTrim> jcheney: no point in standardizing something that is non-decidable
James Cheney: no point in standardizing something that is non-decidable [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
23:59:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:01:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:01:24 <Paolo> q?
q? ←
00:01:29 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
00:01:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: maintain subProperty hierarchy in PROV-O since it exists in DM
Paul Groth: maintain subProperty hierarchy in PROV-O since it exists in DM [ Scribe Assist by Craig Trim ] ←
00:01:55 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
00:02:07 <Luc> q/
Luc Moreau: q/ ←
00:02:09 <Luc> Q?
Luc Moreau: Q? ←
00:02:15 <TomDN> q-
Tom De Nies: q- ←
00:02:15 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
00:03:05 <Luc> proposed: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology
PROPOSED: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology ←
00:03:10 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
00:03:12 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
00:03:14 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
00:03:17 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
00:03:18 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
00:03:19 <dcorsar_> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
00:03:19 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
00:03:26 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
00:03:31 <tlebo> +.98
Timothy Lebo: +.98 ←
00:03:32 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
00:04:00 <Luc> accepted: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology
RESOLVED: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology ←
00:04:35 <Paulo> q?
00:05:07 <Curt> I would word it "It should be possible to express anything compliant with the DM using the ontology"
Curt Tilmes: I would word it "It should be possible to express anything compliant with the DM using the ontology" ←
00:05:19 <pgroth> +1 for curt
Paul Groth: +1 for curt ←
00:05:31 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
00:05:47 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:06:01 <TomDN> That's exactly what makes it a nice line between syntactic validity and "semantic" validity
Tom De Nies: That's exactly what makes it a nice line between syntactic validity and "semantic" validity ←
00:06:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:06:22 <TomDN> (or "constrained" validity, whatever)
Tom De Nies: (or "constrained" validity, whatever) ←
00:06:29 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
00:06:56 <jcheney> Since the constraints & inferences are still allowed/encouraged, in a REC, I don't think we lose anything here - just observe that there is an instance of PROV-O that bakes them in
James Cheney: Since the constraints & inferences are still allowed/encouraged, in a REC, I don't think we lose anything here - just observe that there is an instance of PROV-O that bakes them in ←
00:07:11 <Paulo> q+
00:07:42 <Curt> (keep a CM tag for the version of the .owl just prior to removing all the constraints)
Curt Tilmes: (keep a CM tag for the version of the .owl just prior to removing all the constraints) ←
00:08:59 <TomDN> topic: PROV-N
Summary: The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.
<pgroth> Summary: The group was asked for any relevant technical issues on prov-n. Two were identified. The possible ramifications for internationalization and what the mimetype should be. Ivan was actioned to look into internationalization and the group agreed that the mimetype should be text/prov-n.
00:10:06 <Paolo> q+ to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation
q+ to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation ←
00:10:12 <TomDN> Paulo: about PROV-CONSTRAINTS: could we have a notion of "well-formed"-ness
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: about PROV-CONSTRAINTS: could we have a notion of "well-formed"-ness [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:10:18 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
00:10:23 <TomDN> Luc: Back to PROV-N: any issues?
Luc Moreau: Back to PROV-N: any issues? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:10:29 <Luc> ack pau
Luc Moreau: ack pau ←
00:10:40 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
00:10:40 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation
Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation ←
00:11:33 <TomDN> pg: for internationalization: we can go to LC, and ask internationalization responsibles if it's allright
Paul Groth: for internationalization: we can go to LC, and ask internationalization responsibles if it's allright [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:11:51 <TomDN> ... or how we can do it
Tom De Nies: ... or how we can do it ←
00:12:01 <pgroth> action: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N
ACTION: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N ←
00:12:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-94 - Check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-30]. ←
00:12:17 <TomDN> Luc: In an earlier version there was a language tag over Strings, and it was removed
Luc Moreau: In an earlier version there was a language tag over Strings, and it was removed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:12:27 <TomDN> ... Any technical issues?
Tom De Nies: ... Any technical issues? ←
00:12:31 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:12:47 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
00:13:02 <TomDN> Luc: There is an issue for LC, that a MIMETYPE is used, a request needs to be put in
Luc Moreau: There is an issue for LC, that if a MIMETYPE is used, a request needs to be put in [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:13:20 <TomDN> s/a MIMETYPE/if a MIMETYPE
00:13:46 <TomDN> Luc: 1st question: is the group fine with a MIMETYPE in PROV-N?
Luc Moreau: 1st question: is the group fine with a MIMETYPE in PROV-N? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:13:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:13:56 <TomDN> Luc: 2nd question: are we happy with the name?
Luc Moreau: 2nd question: are we happy with the name? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:14:06 <pgroth> text/prov-n
Paul Groth: text/prov-n ←
00:14:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:14:52 <jcheney> q+ to ask why not text/prov
James Cheney: q+ to ask why not text/prov ←
00:15:00 <TomDN> tlebo: we're already covered for RDF types (existing stuff out there)
Timothy Lebo: we're already covered for RDF types (existing stuff out there) [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:15:18 <TomDN> jcheney: why not text/prov ?
James Cheney: why not text/prov ? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:15:38 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
00:15:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:15:40 <hook> q+
Hook Hua: q+ ←
00:15:42 <TomDN> ... It automatically maps to prov-n
Tom De Nies: ... It automatically maps to prov-n ←
00:15:44 <Luc> ack jche
Luc Moreau: ack jche ←
00:15:44 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask why not text/prov
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to ask why not text/prov ←
00:16:00 <TomDN> tlebo: recommend keeping the n
Timothy Lebo: recommend keeping the n [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:16:16 <TomDN> ... because of the various ways to specify provenance
Tom De Nies: ... because of the various ways to specify provenance ←
00:16:18 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
00:16:23 <Luc> ack tl
Luc Moreau: ack tl ←
00:16:24 <TomDN> +1 tlebo
Tom De Nies: +1 tlebo ←
00:16:34 <TomDN> hook: +1 tlebo
Hook Hua: +1 tlebo [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:16:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:16:57 <TomDN> ... imagine prov-json etc
Tom De Nies: ... imagine prov-json etc ←
00:17:01 <Luc> ack hoo
Luc Moreau: ack hoo ←
00:17:12 <TomDN> jcheney: I planned for this! hahah!
James Cheney: I planned for this! hahah! [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:17:24 <TomDN> ... (and you matched my expectations)
Tom De Nies: ... (and you matched my expectations) ←
00:17:37 <Luc> accepted: mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n
RESOLVED: mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n ←
00:18:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:18:12 <TomDN> Topic: PROV-CONSTRAINTS
Summary: James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.
<pgroth> Summary: James asked whether the current whether the current approach for prov-constraints was acceptable? There was general consensus that a constraints document was important to have for the creation of validators for PROV. There was a concern raised about defining constraints that were undecidable. The group resolved that the constraints defined in the prov-constraints document should be decidable.
00:18:20 <hook> text/prov-{textual encoding scheme}
Hook Hua: text/prov-{textual encoding scheme} ←
00:18:37 <TomDN> Luc: coming back to the compliance section
Luc Moreau: coming back to the compliance section [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:19:08 <Dong> @hook the MIME type for JSON is application/json
Trung Huynh: @hook the MIME type for JSON is application/json ←
00:19:13 <TomDN> jcheney: We need a clear idea whether there is consensus if something like what we have now is acceptable
James Cheney: We need a clear idea whether there is consensus if something like what we have now is acceptable [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:19:53 <Dong> @hook I don't think we should have new MIME types for XML, JSON, and RDF
Trung Huynh: @hook I don't think we should have new MIME types for XML, JSON, and RDF ←
00:20:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:20:15 <TomDN> ... so maybe more people should read it
Tom De Nies: ... so maybe more people should read it ←
00:20:36 <tlebo> @dong (is there a mimetype for xml?)
Timothy Lebo: @dong (is there a mimetype for xml?) ←
00:21:14 <pgroth> q+ to say what constraints doc is important for
Paul Groth: q+ to say what constraints doc is important for ←
00:21:24 <TomDN> ... To respond to Paulo's question (is it feasible to check validity?): we shouldn't include anything that's impossible to check computationally
Tom De Nies: ... To respond to Paulo's question (is it feasible to check validity?): we shouldn't include anything that's impossible to check computationally ←
00:21:24 <Dong> tlebo: I thought it was application/xml
Timothy Lebo: I thought it was application/xml [ Scribe Assist by Trung Huynh ] ←
00:21:36 <Curt> prov-json is more specific (more tightly defined) than application/json e.g.
Curt Tilmes: prov-json is more specific (more tightly defined) than application/json e.g. ←
00:21:42 <TomDN> ... So nothing undecidable
Tom De Nies: ... So nothing undecidable ←
00:21:48 <tlebo> @dong, ya. application/xml
Timothy Lebo: @dong, ya. application/xml ←
00:22:21 <TomDN> ... I've tried to organize things in terms of inferences and definitions you can comply with
Tom De Nies: ... I've tried to organize things in terms of inferences and definitions you can comply with ←
00:22:40 <TomDN> ... We still need to specify what to do with optional arguments
Tom De Nies: ... We still need to specify what to do with optional arguments ←
00:22:55 <TomDN> ... We may want uniqueness constraints.
Tom De Nies: ... We may want uniqueness constraints. ←
00:23:20 <zednik> @Don, tlebo: application/xml and text/xml
Stephan Zednik: @Dong, tlebo: application/xml and text/xml ←
00:23:21 <zednik> s/Don/Dong
00:23:34 <TomDN> ... We also want to be able to say that some things are not allowed. (like cycles and stuff)
Tom De Nies: ... We also want to be able to say that some things are not allowed. (like cycles and stuff) ←
00:24:27 <TomDN> ... We also might want some normalization in there
Tom De Nies: ... We also might want some normalization in there ←
00:24:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:24:47 <TomDN> ... So there are both technical and representation issues remaining.
Tom De Nies: ... So there are both technical and representation issues remaining. ←
00:25:06 <TomDN> Paulo: Are the PROV- documents intended to be distributed?
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Are the provenance descriptions intended to be distributed? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:25:42 <TomDN> s/documents/descriptions
00:25:53 <TomDN> s/PROV-/provenance
00:25:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:26:25 <TomDN> jcheney: yes, but it's up to the asserter to specify this
James Cheney: yes, but it's up to the asserter to specify this [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:26:31 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.805.893.aaaa ←
00:26:32 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended ←
00:26:32 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo ←
00:26:37 <tlebo> @jcheney, as it should be "it's up to the reader to decide" what circumscribes the assertions.
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, as it should be "it's up to the reader to decide" what circumscribes the assertions. ←
00:26:45 <tlebo> +1 @jcheney
Timothy Lebo: +1 @jcheney ←
00:26:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:26:58 <TomDN> Paolo: it's basicly validating a set of assertions, regardless of where they are
Paolo Missier: it's basicly validating a set of assertions, regardless of where they are [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:27:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:27:28 <TomDN> pg: We addressed the distributed validation pretty well with validators in the Semantic Wev
Paul Groth: We addressed the distributed validation pretty well with validators in the Semantic Web [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:27:32 <TomDN> s/Wev/Web
00:27:51 <TomDN> pg: This document is very important for building a validator
Paul Groth: This document is very important for building a validator [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:28:08 <jcheney> Can we collect the feedback from developers somewhere?
James Cheney: Can we collect the feedback from developers somewhere? ←
00:28:23 <TomDN> ... it's part of the compromise of scruffiness
Tom De Nies: ... it's part of the compromise of scruffiness ←
00:28:29 <TomDN> ... to have a validator
Tom De Nies: ... to have a validator ←
00:28:36 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
00:28:50 <Paulo> q+
00:28:58 <Dong> +1 to validator
Trung Huynh: +1 to validator ←
00:29:22 <Dong> q+
Trung Huynh: q+ ←
00:29:26 <Luc> ack to
Luc Moreau: ack to ←
00:29:33 <jcheney> As I unerstand it there will have to be implementations of validation for the prov-constraints to proceed on REC track
James Cheney: As I unerstand it there will have to be implementations of validation for the prov-constraints to proceed on REC track ←
00:29:49 <pgroth> but they work - good enough
Paul Groth: but they work - good enough ←
00:29:49 <TomDN> tomdn: So that corresponds to what Luc said before, a validator is one of the implementations we really want to have
Tom De Nies: So that corresponds to what Luc said before, a validator is one of the implementations we really want to have [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:30:00 <TomDN> ,,, and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that
Tom De Nies: ,,, and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that ←
00:30:04 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
00:30:10 <TomDN> ... and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that
Tom De Nies: ... and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that ←
00:30:18 <Luc> ack pau
Luc Moreau: ack pau ←
00:30:32 <TomDN> ... so everything should be computable (cfr. jcheney)
Tom De Nies: ... so everything should be computable (cfr. jcheney) ←
00:30:45 <pgroth> something like http://inspector.sindice.com/
Paul Groth: something like http://inspector.sindice.com/ ←
00:30:57 <tlebo> @paulo, not enough prior art for us to standardize. You're expressing practical concerns that are application-specific, which we can't help as a WG.
Timothy Lebo: @paulo, not enough prior art for us to standardize. You're expressing practical concerns that are application-specific, which we can't help as a WG. ←
00:31:04 <TomDN> Paulo: we can't impose a closed world assumption
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: we can't impose a closed world assumption [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:31:10 <Luc> ack do
Luc Moreau: ack do ←
00:31:39 <TomDN> dong: I like the idea of the 2 levels of compliance, syntactic and "semantically"valid
Trung Huynh: I like the idea of the 2 levels of compliance, syntactic and "semantically"valid [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:31:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:32:19 <pgroth> ack paolo
Paul Groth: ack paolo ←
00:32:21 <TomDN> kind of like HTML strict, right?
Tom De Nies: kind of like HTML strict, right? ←
00:32:22 <jcheney> Just to be clear, curently VALID means "satisfies all constraints"
James Cheney: Just to be clear, curently VALID means "satisfies all constraints" ←
00:32:31 <TomDN> (kind of)
Tom De Nies: (kind of) ←
00:33:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:33:03 <tlebo> +1 @paolo "distribution is a secondary problem" that distracts from a validator.
Timothy Lebo: +1 @paolo "distribution is a secondary problem" that distracts from a validator. ←
00:33:23 <TomDN> paolo: There's a good basis for this validation (ignoring the distribution issues), combined with what's out there
Paolo Missier: There's a good basis for this validation (ignoring the distribution issues), combined with what's out there [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:33:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:33:30 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
00:33:33 <Paulo> coonstraints and best practices may be co-designed
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: coonstraints and best practices may be co-designed ←
00:34:24 <TomDN> Luc: So I don't see technical objections raised against the compliance section, except maybe the 2 levels of validation
Luc Moreau: So I don't see technical objections raised against the compliance section, except maybe the 2 levels of validation [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:34:40 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:34:54 <TomDN> jcheney: agreed
James Cheney: agreed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:34:55 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
00:35:17 <Curt> I would call the levels "DM compliant" and "CONSTRAINTS compliant"
Curt Tilmes: I would call the levels "DM compliant" and "CONSTRAINTS compliant" ←
00:35:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:35:34 <TomDN> pg: I think it's fine to say there's only one level of validity, but that the validator has levels of response
Paul Groth: I think it's fine to say there's only one level of validity, but that the validator has levels of response [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:35:37 <Paulo> q+
00:36:01 <TomDN> ... it's up to implementer of the validator, not to us
Tom De Nies: ... it's up to implementer of the validator, not to us ←
00:36:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:36:15 <TomDN> jcheney: agreed
James Cheney: agreed [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:36:37 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
00:36:40 <Luc> ack pau
Luc Moreau: ack pau ←
00:36:49 <Paolo> q+
q+ ←
00:37:13 <TomDN> Paulo: Validating everything at once is very hard, but smaller parts might be feasible
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Validating everything at once is very hard, but smaller parts might be feasible [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:37:35 <Luc> ack cu
Luc Moreau: ack cu ←
00:37:36 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
00:37:49 <TomDN> Curt: I would define the levels of compliance with DM and CONSTRAINTS separatly
Curt Tilmes: I would define the levels of compliance with DM and CONSTRAINTS separatly [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:38:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:38:16 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
00:38:39 <TomDN> Paolo: It's not clear to me if there are problems with the decidability of the constraints
Paolo Missier: It's not clear to me if there are problems with the decidability of the constraints [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:39:23 <TomDN> Paolo: The technical discussion should be had offline, before dismissing the document
Paolo Missier: The technical discussion should be had offline, before dismissing the document [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:40:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:40:12 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
00:40:17 <TomDN> +q to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?
Tom De Nies: +q to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability? ←
00:40:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:40:46 <TomDN> Luc: maybe it shouldn't be called CONSTRAINTS, but VALIDITY?
Luc Moreau: maybe it shouldn't be called CONSTRAINTS, but VALIDITY? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:40:59 <Luc> ack tom
Luc Moreau: ack tom ←
00:40:59 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN, you wanted to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability? ←
00:41:27 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
00:42:08 <TomDN> Luc: i don't hear objections to the compliance section, on the contrary, there is large support for it
Luc Moreau: i don't hear objections to the compliance section, on the contrary, there is large support for it [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:42:36 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
00:42:57 <TomDN> jcheney: Could use some help in editing the constraints
James Cheney: Could use some help in editing the constraints [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
00:43:14 <TomDN> ... but input such as today's is valuable
Tom De Nies: ... but input such as today's is valuable ←
00:43:56 <TomDN> ... We should keep in mind: There's no point in standardizing something that's not computable.
Tom De Nies: ... We should keep in mind: There's no point in standardizing something that's not computable. ←
00:44:47 <TomDN> ... Would be happy with a proposal to comfirm this.
Tom De Nies: ... Would be happy with a proposal to comfirm this. ←
00:45:15 <Paulo> q+
00:45:22 <Luc> proposed: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints
PROPOSED: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints ←
00:45:26 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
00:45:27 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
00:45:29 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
00:45:30 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
00:45:33 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
00:45:33 <dcorsar> +1
David Corsar: +1 ←
00:45:34 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
00:45:38 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
00:45:41 <TomDN> actually, +MAX_INT
Tom De Nies: actually, +MAX_INT ←
00:45:54 <Luc> accepted: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints
RESOLVED: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints ←
00:46:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
00:46:41 <pgroth> trackbot end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot end telcon ←
00:46:45 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
Khalid Belhajjame: bye ←
00:46:54 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
00:47:39 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
00:47:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
00:47:51 <pgroth> rrsagent, set logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set logs public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe