IRC log of prov on 2011-09-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:57:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:57:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:57:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:57:17 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
14:57:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:57:18 [trackbot]
Date: 01 September 2011
14:57:18 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:57:18 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:19 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:57:34 [Luc]
14:57:44 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:57:49 [Luc]
Scribe: stain
14:57:55 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:58:04 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:11 [Zakim]
14:58:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.987.aaaa
14:58:28 [Zakim]
14:58:48 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aabb
14:58:58 [Luc]
zakim, aabb is me
14:58:59 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:59:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.368.aacc
14:59:12 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
14:59:15 [Luc]
@stain, are you scribing?
14:59:46 [satya]
zakim, +1.216.368.aacc is me
14:59:56 [Zakim]
+satya; got it
15:00:06 [Luc]
zakim, who is here?
15:00:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P12, +1.443.987.aaaa, ??P32, Luc, satya
15:00:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aadd
15:00:35 [Zakim]
15:00:35 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:00:35 [Luc]
we don't seem to have a scribe
15:00:36 [Curt]
zakim, +1.443.987.aaaa is me
15:00:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GK1, Curt, Edoardo, Zakim, RRSAgent, GK, Paolo, satya, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot
15:00:45 [Zakim]
15:00:54 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:00:57 [GK]
zakim, ??P57 is me
15:01:01 [Zakim]
+Curt; got it
15:01:11 [Zakim]
15:01:15 [Zakim]
15:01:27 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:01:31 [Luc]
Scribe: GK
15:01:33 [Zakim]
15:01:35 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:01:44 [stain]
Luc: sorry I was late
15:02:12 [Luc]
stain: do you still want to scribe, we are starting ...
15:02:12 [stain]
skype was not playing along
15:02:59 [stain]
Luc: Requirements for main draft
15:03:05 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:03:07 [stain]
Luc: Talk about provenance ontology
15:03:17 [stain]
Luc: suggests to drop document from agenda
15:03:29 [GK]
Agenda: accept minutes of Aug 25 telecon
15:03:31 [Luc]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Aug 25 telecon
15:03:36 [Luc]
15:03:37 [satya]
15:03:42 [Curt]
15:03:43 [Paolo]
(wasn't there)
15:03:44 [dcorsar]
15:03:47 [GK]
0 (not present)
15:03:52 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aaee
15:03:52 [stain]
0 (not present)
15:03:53 [Edoardo]
15:03:55 [smiles]
15:03:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aaff
15:04:03 [StephenCresswell]
15:04:12 [Zakim]
15:04:15 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: the minutes of Aug 25 telecon
15:04:18 [GK]
Minutes accepted
15:04:29 [stain]
Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me
15:04:30 [Lena]
Lena has joined #prov
15:04:30 [GK]
AGenda: review actions
15:04:34 [Luc]
TOPIC: Named graphs requirements
15:04:35 [GK]
No outstanding actions
15:04:42 [GK]
Agenda: Named graph requirements
15:04:59 [stain]
Luc: The RDF working group would like to have a telcon to hear our requirements
15:05:00 [GK]
Luc: RDF WG would like teleconference to understand requirements.
15:05:04 [Luc]
15:05:06 [stain]
Luc: A wiki pake made by Satya
15:05:12 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
15:05:17 [Luc]
15:05:19 [GK]
@Stian - are you taking over
15:05:20 [satya]
@Luc: Is there a tentative date for the telcon?
15:05:26 [stain]
@GK sure - if you mute your keyboard :)
15:05:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.860.995.aagg
15:05:45 [GK]
15:05:48 [Zakim]
15:05:59 [GK]
Scribe: Stian
15:06:06 [stain]
Luc: 2011-09-15 The 15th of September as tentative date - after the normal telcon - extra 45 mins
15:06:11 [stain]
Luc: But not yet decided
15:06:26 [satya]
me and Paul
15:06:29 [stain]
Luc: Who submitted the requirements of the wiki? Could authors indicate?
15:06:31 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:06:40 [satya]
15:06:49 [Zakim]
15:06:54 [GK]
15:06:56 [stain]
Luc: Any other requirements? Simon?
15:06:59 [sandro]
zakim, ??P27 is Sandro
15:06:59 [Zakim]
+Sandro; got it
15:06:59 [stain]
Simon: All there
15:07:11 [stain]
Satya: Wanted to add more points before telcon
15:07:16 [satya]
15:07:17 [Luc]
15:07:20 [stain]
Luc: Also had some ideas - need to check if they are captured
15:07:24 [Luc]
ack gk
15:07:37 [Zakim]
15:07:46 [stain]
GK: By email - nature of provenance. Two possible roles for named graphs - which might be quite specific
15:07:53 [stain]
GK: 1) Handling of accounts
15:07:54 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P41 is me
15:07:54 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:08:04 [stain]
GK: 2) Handling of contextual assertions of provenance
15:08:25 [jorn]
jorn has joined #prov
15:08:39 [stain]
GK: See my response in email response to Luc
15:08:54 [stain]
GK: Need a way to encapsulate provenance statements to relate to a context
15:08:56 [Zakim]
15:09:03 [stain]
GK: Suggest to not discuss this in this telcon as it can be complex
15:09:10 [jorn]
Zakim: ??p42 is me
15:09:26 [stain]
Luc: Could GK add this as a potential requirement on the wiki page?
15:09:54 [stain]
ACTION GK: Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to
15:09:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-37 - Add potential contextual named raphs requirements to [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-09-08].
15:09:57 [Luc]
TOPIC: Name for the standard
15:09:57 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
15:10:35 [stain]
Luc: First draft to be released end of month - need a name for the model/language/etc. Proposals
15:10:58 [stain]
Luc: Straw poll here - but want to hear what people think about names
15:11:22 [satya]
@Luc WE are counting PIF twice?
15:11:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.343.aahh
15:11:51 [Luc]
15:11:54 [stain]
Luc: Particpants of the call have 3 votes - you can vote 3 on same name, 1 vote on 3 names, 3+1, etc
15:12:01 [Luc]
15:12:08 [Vinh]
Zakim, +1.937.343.aahh is me
15:12:08 [Zakim]
+Vinh; got it
15:12:48 [stain]
Satya: Worried about double-counting PIF (#15, #16)
15:13:18 [stain]
Satya: Suggest counting 15+16 as one
15:13:23 [Edoardo_]
Edoardo_ has joined #prov
15:13:28 [stain]
Luc: 15+16 now merged on wiki
15:13:33 [dgarijo]
+3 to PIL
15:13:36 [stain]
Luc: Indicate which ones you are voting for now
15:13:43 [smiles]
11, 11, 15
15:13:44 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:13:45 [satya]
15, 15, 15
15:13:49 [Paolo]
3 14 15
15:13:52 [Lena]
3, 10, 15
15:13:57 [Curt]
5 15 14
15:14:06 [dcorsar]
3, 5, 14
15:14:08 [GK]
12, 13, 15
15:14:08 [stain]
5, 10, 12
15:14:15 [dgarijo]
(5, 5, 5)
15:14:20 [sandro]
10 15
15:14:34 [Edoardo_]
3, 5, 11
15:14:40 [stain]
Luc: We'll count the votes offline and send an email and hope to progress from there
15:14:43 [Zakim]
15:14:51 [stain]
echo, echo
15:14:56 [Zakim]
15:14:57 [Edoardo_]
Edoardo_ has left #prov
15:15:04 [Zakim]
+ +329331aaii
15:15:07 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P29 is me
15:15:07 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:15:07 [Edoardo_]
Edoardo_ has joined #prov
15:15:18 [zednik]
5, 5, 15
15:15:20 [Luc]
TOPIC: Primer Document
15:15:30 [Edoardo_]
Edoardo_ has joined #prov
15:15:45 [SamCoppens]
zakim, +329331aaii is me
15:15:45 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
15:15:52 [Zakim]
15:16:06 [stain]
Luc: Discussed this 4 weeks ago, and said not to do a primer at that stage. Paolo and Luc as editors of model documents tries to illustrate the model - but also to specify it. It's difficult to do both in same document.
15:16:34 [Luc]
15:16:40 [stain]
Luc: GK commented that this is not so useful - it's time to get on with a Primer document. Simon has expressed interest on worker on primer.
15:16:41 [GK]
q+ to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer
15:16:56 [stain]
Luc: Would you want to work on a primer - and what do you expect?
15:17:04 [smiles]
15:17:33 [stain]
GK: I commented that a 50k feet view would belong in the model. Don't seem to be completely clear in consensus in what model contains, so uncertain about doing a primer now while model still in flux.
15:17:33 [satya]
+1 for GK's point
15:18:09 [stain]
GK: Also said that example was not useful - the complexity was such that it was as hard to understand to example as the message
15:18:32 [Luc]
ack GK
15:18:32 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say that I think a 50,000 foot view belongs in the model, not a separate primer
15:18:38 [stain]
GK: Perhaps that example would fit better in a primer - but still seed need for a overview in the model
15:18:50 [Luc]
ack smiles
15:19:01 [stain]
smiles: example sounds good to include in the primer
15:19:16 [satya]
15:19:18 [stain]
smiles: more clarity step by step - say why things are done how they are. Might be reasonable to start with a simpler example
15:19:56 [stain]
smiles: high-level view on model, agree with GK. High-level in model doc, but also in the primer in more non-normative terms.
15:20:20 [stain]
smiles: A high-level description in the model document might easily always be normative - easier to suggest how to interpret model in the primer
15:20:41 [Zakim]
15:20:53 [stain]
satya: Agree with previous, primer has 3 functions. 1. Simple example. How would model elements be used in non-normative description.
15:21:18 [stain]
Satya: 2: How would this be modelled in OWL/RDF, bits of ontology doc. 3: How would it be accessed - elements of query document.
15:21:23 [GK]
q+ to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec
15:21:28 [stain]
Satya: Then give overall overview of how to handle provenance information
15:21:54 [stain]
Satya: Now is not the optimal point for working on primer - look at it in the end of september when draft is published and discussed issues have settled
15:21:57 [Luc]
15:22:01 [Paolo]
+1 for starting after initial model doc has been released
15:22:01 [Luc]
ack satya
15:22:08 [Luc]
ack gk
15:22:08 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say I think the RDF modelling should be NORMATIVE, else we don't have a usable spec
15:22:20 [Zakim]
- +1.860.995.aagg
15:22:41 [stain]
GK: The representation in RDF should be a normative output - assumed that abstract model -> RDF would become part of model document.
15:23:01 [stain]
Luc: Answer - No. RDF representation not in model document.
15:23:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.860.995.aajj
15:23:12 [stain]
Luc: It would be in the formalisation document led by (?)
15:23:13 [Paolo]
RDF repr should be somewhere but not in the conceptual model doc
15:23:42 [stain]
@Paolo - yes - it should be formal, but not neccessarily part of the conceptual model
15:23:57 [stain]
Luc: Illustrations can be done in RDF and/or the abstract .. - but not by end of September
15:24:12 [satya]
15:24:16 [Zakim]
15:24:24 [stain]
GK: If this is to be useful on the web we need something to interoperate between application, and at least one normative format like RDF would be required
15:24:35 [Luc]
ack satya
15:24:37 [Zakim]
- +1.860.995.aajj
15:24:39 [stain]
Luc: The normative spec will be included in the doc made by Satya
15:24:51 [Paolo]
@GK mapping to RDF /is/ normative but in the ontology doc
15:25:13 [stain]
Satya: The Ontology is the normative representation of the model. The illustrative RDF should corresponding to the normative OWL
15:25:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.860.995.aakk
15:25:24 [stain]
Satya: Illustrated examples would be by the normative RDF format
15:25:24 [Luc]
15:25:29 [GK]
I'm Ok with the normative mappingt to RD being in the ontology doc
15:25:59 [stain]
Luc: Is the feeling to wait until end of September?
15:26:04 [Lena]
me + stephan have defined the primer to be on our task force
15:26:10 [stain]
Luc: Example is to have an example explained - ultimately a primer view
15:26:10 [satya]
15:26:13 [Lena]
but we need the model to be described first
15:26:16 [stain]
15:26:24 [GK]
I think when to start the primer depends on whoever wants to do the work :)
15:26:31 [Luc]
ack satya
15:26:34 [Paolo]
15:26:44 [stain]
Satya: Could be useful as Smiles would work on primer, if he participates more with the other 3 groups and identify content that can be migrated to the primer later
15:26:53 [Lena]
i agree with graham that it would be a wild goose hunt to produce a primer while the model is a shifting target
15:27:18 [stain]
Satya: Not a separate wiki page!
15:27:34 [stain]
Satya: Do as comments as part of provenance.. query.. task force wiki page
15:27:46 [Luc]
ack st
15:28:13 [GK]
If start primer now, I think it should start as an proper draft document. +1 to not creating yet another wiki page.
15:28:38 [Luc]
ack paolo
15:28:54 [stain]
Stian: If we don't have a primer, will there for the initial draft be an overview document that shows a quick introduction of what the model/ontology is, etc.
15:29:01 [stain]
Paolo: If someone works on primer now, should shadow the other work
15:29:14 [stain]
Paolo: Should start work on a complete example - iterative process
15:29:31 [stain]
@GK +1
15:29:37 [stain]
Paolo: Would inform the primer
15:29:52 [Luc]
15:29:57 [stain]
Paolo: See mutual benefits from Smiles and others shadowing
15:30:01 [smiles]
15:30:04 [Zakim]
15:30:11 [stain]
Luc: Paolo suggests working on complete example - a new example to design, or data journalism example?
15:30:19 [jorn]
zakim, ??p3 is me
15:30:19 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:30:21 [stain]
Paolo: Data J example not used in conceptual model docs
15:30:38 [GK]
I'd say several examples: simple to complex, chosen to illusrate and/or test different points.
15:30:38 [stain]
Paolo: If it is a good example, but no constraints
15:30:53 [Luc]
15:30:56 [stain]
@GK, agree - show different bits instead of a massive example to learn first
15:30:57 [satya]
@Paolo: :)
15:31:11 [stain]
Paolo: Should anyway be a different example from the model document
15:31:47 [stain]
smiles: an example section in the concept model document and formal document, and in access document - and then someone to edit those sections so that they are explained. Would that make sense?
15:31:58 [stain]
Paolo: Not quite - something complementary
15:32:02 [Luc]
15:32:05 [Luc]
ack smil
15:32:21 [stain]
Paolo: That the model is sound and explain it, but a different model. Primer should not be part of the other documents.
15:32:56 [stain]
smiles: Not the impression I got from others - they suggest it was too early, just wanted better examples in the normative documents
15:32:57 [GK]
q+ to ask simon what he feels about this
15:33:06 [GK]
15:33:16 [stain]
smiles: not much in either way
15:33:26 [satya]
15:33:27 [stain]
smiles: someone can work on the example within the context of the existing docs
15:33:57 [stain]
Luc: Then to replace the example section with something different? Don't want two examples in conceptual model doc
15:34:18 [stain]
smiles: expect several examples in the primer. add more text to existing examples to explain and clarify at this stage
15:34:21 [GK]
+1 independent choice of what goes in model document
15:34:46 [stain]
Luc: have a problem with File example does not cover all the concepts
15:34:54 [Luc]
15:34:54 [stain]
Luc: Would be useful with an example that highlights all concepts
15:35:08 [stain]
smiles: raise issues in that regard - edit the example
15:35:17 [Luc]
ack satya
15:35:28 [GK]
Is it appropriate/necessary for the model document to have examples covering *all* aspects?
15:35:40 [stain]
satya: in the primer document with should have one example, and use this in all the documents.
15:36:05 [stain]
satya: would DataJournalism example be better, Luc?
15:36:23 [GK]
If model document is formal description, that should cover the essential content, methinks
15:36:25 [stain]
Luc: DataJ example is fairly long, does not expose all concepts either
15:36:54 [stain]
satya: Try to create snapshot examples for each model, in provenance ontology group we discussed this. Then do bottom-up approach for each element - then consolidate as one big example
15:36:59 [Lena]
+1 for bottom-up!
15:37:00 [zednik]
15:37:16 [stain]
Luc: Worried about changing at this late stage before going first public draft
15:37:51 [stain]
satya: keep file scenario, but what we have in mind, we write in down in the conceptual model, as it evolves, keep append it to the top scenario
15:37:55 [Luc]
15:38:07 [stain]
zednik: what are we compiling all into one example?
15:38:18 [stain]
zednik: may have a complicated, silly example if we merge everything into one
15:38:21 [Lena]
+1 for stephan's comment
15:38:23 [Luc]
ack zedn
15:38:24 [stain]
@zednik +1
15:38:25 [zednik]
15:38:35 [satya]
@Stephan - good point!
15:38:40 [GK]
@zednik +1
15:38:51 [stain]
Luc: So we're not quite clear yet - think a bit more and come up with a concrete proposal for next telcon
15:38:51 [Paolo]
@zednik +1 -- conceptual model already has two separate scenarios
15:39:04 [Luc]
15:39:07 [Paolo]
(file editing, Royal Society)
15:39:27 [stain]
ACTION smiles: Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material
15:39:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-38 - Make proposal on how to proceed on primer material [on Simon Miles - due 2011-09-08].
15:39:38 [Luc]
TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions
15:39:56 [stain]
Luc: Did not reach consensus last week on past vs present tense
15:40:18 [stain]
Luc: Look at what we said on the edges - some confusion last week. Proposal in the agenda
15:40:28 [dgarijo]
can we post the proposal please?
15:40:34 [Luc]
proposed: Edge labels contain a verb
15:40:49 [stain]
15:40:49 [Luc]
isUsedBy, isControlledBy, isDerivedFrom, hasParticipants
15:41:04 [dgarijo]
15:41:08 [stain]
Luc: Example of what form of verbs we would have
15:41:35 [stain]
dgarijo: agree on having verb in the edge - but would strongly disagree on 'isUsedBy'
15:41:48 [stain]
dgarijo: an artifact is used by a process and produced by a process
15:42:03 [stain]
Luc: not suggesting these actual labels - but the general principle
15:42:04 [Luc]
15:42:16 [Luc]
ack dg
15:42:21 [stain]
Luc: Not proposing domain/range direction now - just that the term contains a verb
15:42:24 [stain]
15:43:13 [GK]
This is an area where I think a 50,000 foot view would help
15:43:36 [stain]
Luc: Model document lists all labels.. but we're trying to adopt a convention if verb is explicit
15:43:39 [GK]
To see all the names related as a composite structure ... see if they make sense together
15:44:02 [stain]
Stian: Not sure if we'll get too much of isSomethingBy - could get a bit convoulted vs. 'something'
15:44:15 [Zakim]
15:44:24 [stain]
GK: This is where a bird eye view would help - a diagram showing classes and relationships - although simplified
15:44:46 [satya]
@GK: you mean a visualization of the model?
15:44:47 [dgarijo]
we have generated an overview of the ontology if that's what you mean, Graham:
15:44:59 [stain]
GK: Considering terms in isolation - then it's difficult as you loose the context in which they will work
15:45:03 [Zakim]
15:45:05 [Zakim]
15:45:20 [satya]
@Daniel +1
15:45:26 [Zakim]
15:45:34 [jorn]
zakim, ??p3 is me
15:45:34 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:45:46 [stain]
Luc: in emails - Instead of isComplementOf - then say complement? hasParticipants -> participants
15:45:54 [stain]
Luc: Satya reacted that this was not useful
15:45:58 [stain]
Luc: Two conventions
15:46:14 [Luc]
15:46:17 [stain]
Luc: what label conventions do we adopt
15:46:26 [stain]
ack stain
15:46:51 [Luc]
proposed: Edge labels contain a verb
15:46:58 [dgarijo]
15:46:59 [satya]
15:47:01 [StephenCresswell]
15:47:02 [satya]
15:47:03 [GK]
(Truth is, I don't feel strongly about the naming convention)
15:47:06 [Curt]
15:47:11 [Lena]
15:47:11 [GK]
15:47:14 [smiles]
15:47:15 [stain]
15:47:21 [Paolo]
+1 don't feel very strongly either
15:47:36 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: Edge labels contain a verb
15:47:37 [zednik]
15:47:42 [Edoardo_]
15:48:00 [Luc]
15:48:05 [stain]
Luc: If we have a verb - then we need to decide on the tense - like present or past
15:48:11 [dgarijo]
+1 to PAST tense
15:48:14 [smiles]
15:48:18 [Edoardo_]
+1 past
15:48:21 [Paolo]
Past tense
15:48:32 [Luc]
ack smi
15:48:34 [dgarijo]
since provenance is describing things that have already happened
15:48:43 [satya]
+1 for past tense
15:48:55 [Luc]
15:49:07 [stain]
+1 to present
15:49:09 [Curt]
The other issue was whether to always include the "is" or not.
15:49:15 [Curt]
instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar" instead of "foo isControlledBy bar" just use "foo controlledBy bar"
15:49:23 [GK]
(Next question: convention for passive or active voice? Slightly TIC)
15:49:32 [stain]
Luc: Just voted to have a verb
15:49:39 [stain]
Curt: "controlled by" has a verb
15:49:42 [GK]
"controlled" is a verb
15:49:46 [stain]
@GK right
15:50:07 [stain]
?: "used by" has a verb
15:50:22 [stain]
GK: Sounds like passive or active voice
15:50:58 [stain]
Luc: "Used" is a verb - "I used X" - but "X used by I"..
15:51:04 [stain]
GK: Yes - it's a verb, but in passive voice
15:51:15 [stain]
?: Implicit or explicit verb
15:51:40 [GK]
Sorry, that;'s the *active* voice
15:51:47 [stain]
Luc: "used by" is not a verb - just "used\'
15:52:07 [Luc]
15:52:13 [stain]
@GK, Perhaps passive is good as provenance is describing what went on
15:52:32 [stain]
Luc: Unsure how to progress
15:52:41 [stain]
q+ Can we say this is a separate proposal?
15:52:41 [GK]
Propose: editoprs come up with series of names and let the gropup comment
15:52:47 [Paolo]
15:52:48 [satya]
@Stian: Well it depends, I think active and passive are both useful
15:52:52 [Curt]
+1 keep the explicit "is" verb, passive form, past tense
15:53:17 [GK]
@smiles +1
15:53:20 [stain]
?: Just a case of people being unclear with what is a verb or not - the previous proposal was accepted - we're moving on to past tense or not
15:53:44 [Luc]
proposed: To use past tense for verbs
15:53:51 [Paolo]
15:53:51 [stain]
Luc: Need to formulate a proposal
15:53:51 [dgarijo]
the thing is that I would not be sure how to say that a process Used an artifact with "used by", since that means that an artifact is Used by a process
15:53:55 [smiles]
15:54:19 [stain]
Luc: What is dgarijo suggesting..?
15:54:19 [Luc]
15:54:24 [GK]
Example: used rather than uses ?
15:54:40 [stain]
dgarijo: what would be the name of the edge of 'used' with the verb?
15:54:57 [stain]
Luc: process "uses" an entity
15:55:04 [JimMcCusker]
JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:55:11 [stain]
Luc: But proposal for past tense means "process used entity"
15:55:17 [GK]
used vs wasUsedBy - both past tense, but different directions
15:55:30 [stain]
dgarijo: Why can't we use "control"
15:55:34 [stain]
@GK - exactly
15:55:47 [stain]
@GK and last week we talked about temporal directions
15:56:06 [stain]
dgarijo: liked better "wasControlledBy" - but someone would ask if we say "used" then why not "controlled"
15:56:30 [stain]
@GK the verb is good because it highlights exactly this direction
15:56:42 [Luc]
proposed: To use past tense for verbs
15:56:51 [satya]
15:56:51 [smiles]
15:56:51 [dgarijo]
+1 to past tense
15:56:52 [stain]
15:56:52 [StephenCresswell]
15:56:53 [Curt]
15:56:54 [GK]
15:56:59 [zednik]
15:57:02 [Edoardo_]
15:57:05 [dcorsar]
15:57:08 [Paolo]
15:57:17 [Luc]
accepted: To use past tense for verbs
15:57:38 [satya]
15:57:39 [stain]
Luc: Implications for Satya and Paolo/Luc to update documents to use past tense and verbs
15:57:40 [Luc]
15:57:51 [Zakim]
15:57:53 [Luc]
topic: Provenance Ontology
15:57:53 [stain]
@Luc shall I action that?
15:57:54 [dgarijo]
@Satya, didn't you already put everything in past tense in the ontology?
15:57:59 [satya]
15:58:12 [stain]
Satya: No telcon on Monday, travelling/unavailable
15:58:26 [stain]
Satya: made example of file scenario
15:58:33 [stain]
satya: would like reviews and comments on this
15:58:53 [stain]
satya: two objectives, define extension mechanism - how application can extend to model in their domain
15:59:02 [stain]
satya: show how instances can be created using the ontology
15:59:31 [stain]
satya: Pointed out that formal document includes RDF fragments showing encoding of the (?) scenario - welcome to have a look at this
15:59:35 [stain]
satya: send comments as soon as possible
15:59:47 [Luc]
16:00:03 [dgarijo]
@stain it is the crime file scenario
16:00:05 [JimMcCusker]
16:00:14 [stain]
Luc: Would be useful to see the complete example encoded in RDF. In the document it's only shown a particular entity. Complete example?
16:00:21 [stain]
satya: yes - it's at..
16:00:42 [satya]
16:01:04 [Zakim]
16:01:08 [dgarijo]
the image:
16:01:09 [stain]
satya: not suggesting to include the full RDF into the document
16:01:31 [stain]
dgarijo: :(
16:01:51 [stain]
JimMcCusker: IVPof and complement of seemsto have lost track of what is meant by those
16:02:08 [satya]
@Stian: Daniel pointed to an auto generated diagram, we will re-structure that :)
16:02:08 [stain]
JimMcCusker: might want to put together a page to start usecases of what this construct is adressing
16:02:19 [stain]
@satya - I tried to zoom!
16:02:48 [stain]
Luc: perhaps an model issue, not ontology issue
16:02:55 [stain]
Luc: important to raise such issues on the tracker
16:02:56 [dgarijo]
@stain: yes, maybe the rdf is better right now
16:03:09 [stain]
Luc: discussion taking place - but difficult to understand what the problem is
16:03:12 [satya]
@Stian: yes - we will create a separate diagram
16:03:23 [Zakim]
16:03:38 [stain]
Luc: Jim Mayers does not like isComplementOf as a label - but it's not raised as an issue yet - but he seems happy with the definition
16:03:40 [satya]
I also have issue with the "complement" label
16:04:25 [stain]
JimMcCusker: what was talked about with complement-of seems very difficult from IVP-of
16:04:27 [Luc]
16:04:32 [Paolo]
16:04:47 [stain]
Luc: Paolo and myself changed the definition to make them uniform
16:05:06 [stain]
Luc: is-complement-of had to be revised to match entity's definition - but believe it's still the same spirit of original def
16:05:08 [Luc]
16:05:16 [stain]
Luc: Please raise this as tracker issues
16:05:28 [Zakim]
16:05:28 [Luc]
ack Ji
16:05:55 [stain]
JimMcCusker: tasked to formalise this is-complement-of for the ontology group - it has been difficult to trace out
16:06:03 [stain]
JimMcCusker: should ignore emails and look at the wiki?
16:06:11 [stain]
Luc: no - the conceptual model document
16:06:19 [stain]
16:06:33 [stain]
Luc: but creating a set of complement-of usecases sounds good
16:06:37 [Luc]
ack pao
16:06:54 [stain]
Paolo: is illustrated with figure in model
16:07:00 [stain]
16:07:16 [stain]
Paolo: feels responsible for this - so will engage with any discussion
16:07:24 [Luc]
16:07:50 [stain]
Luc: Satya - what are the key issues now with ontology?
16:08:08 [stain]
Luc: Last week you needed better understanding of model - is it better now?
16:08:21 [stain]
satya: no - need to respond to email. What are top level concepts?
16:08:41 [stain]
satya: we agreed ; two top-level concepts - but you suggest there could be more top level concepots
16:08:52 [stain]
satya: perhaps Luc/Paolo to attend a telcon
16:09:08 [Paolo]
agree that we (two groups) should interact
16:09:08 [stain]
satya: fundamental - what are the top level concepts
16:09:29 [stain]
Luc: Example of Role,.. what is not entity and process execution
16:09:32 [stain]
16:09:43 [dgarijo]
and we are currently discussing the modeling of n-ary relationship with the role-trick you proposed, Satya
16:09:51 [stain]
satya: process is a type of entity - def is a continuent, location, etc.
16:10:04 [stain]
satya: sounds quite broad definition, defined in many upper level ontologies
16:10:12 [stain]
Luc: Should join next week's call
16:10:17 [stain]
satya: Monday 12:00 eastern
16:10:25 [Paolo]
16:10:33 [stain]
satya: could do separate if needed
16:10:33 [Luc]
16:10:45 [Zakim]
- +1.315.330.aadd
16:10:45 [stain]
Thank you!
16:10:46 [Zakim]
16:10:47 [Zakim]
16:10:47 [GK]
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:51 [Zakim]
- +1.860.995.aakk
16:10:51 [Zakim]
16:10:51 [Zakim]
16:10:52 [Zakim]
16:10:53 [stain]
Luc, what do I do now?
16:10:54 [Zakim]
16:10:55 [stain]
ok, thnx
16:10:57 [dgarijo]
16:11:02 [Zakim]
16:11:04 [Zakim]
16:11:05 [Zakim]
16:11:06 [Zakim]
16:11:09 [Zakim]
16:11:11 [Zakim]
- +1.518.633.aaff
16:11:12 [Zakim]
16:11:38 [Luc]
rrsagent, set log public
16:11:43 [Luc]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:11:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Luc
16:11:49 [Luc]
trackbot, end telcon
16:11:49 [trackbot]
16:14:21 [stain]
ah, GK scribed over using my name instead of nick.. :-/
16:16:51 [Zakim]
16:16:52 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:16:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, satya, +1.315.330.aadd, Curt, GK, +1.518.633.aaff, stain, +1.860.995.aagg, Sandro, dgarijo, Vinh, Paolo, SamCoppens, +1.860.995.aajj,
16:16:57 [Zakim]
... +1.860.995.aakk, jorn
17:04:53 [GK]
GK has left #prov
18:21:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #prov
18:22:30 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov
18:30:37 [MacTed]
sorry to have missed today's call... 'isConsumedBy' or 'isInputTo' have occurred to me and feel better than 'isUsedBy' (or s/is/was/)