15:22:14 <stain> satya: discussion on role

Satya Sahoo: discussion on role ←

15:22:24 <stain> satya: call on Monday, discussing how to model roles and how to interpret them in our model

Satya Sahoo: call on Monday, discussing how to model roles and how to interpret them in our model ←

15:22:34 <stain> pgroth: that's the next discussion point

Paul Groth: that's the next discussion point ←

15:22:46 <stain> satya: working on extensibility of prov ontology

Satya Sahoo: working on extensibility of prov ontology ←

15:23:06 <stain> satya: how different domains can extend ontology, doing concrete examples

Satya Sahoo: how different domains can extend ontology, doing concrete examples ←

15:23:25 <stain> satya: to see if we can make Taverna example as an other usecase to deminstrate extension with new classes and properties for scientific workflows

Satya Sahoo: to see if we can make Taverna example as an other usecase to deminstrate extension with new classes and properties for scientific workflows ←

15:23:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:23:40 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:23:40 <stain> q+

q+ ←

15:23:46 <Paolo> +1 for using the Taverna example

Paolo Missier: +1 for using the Taverna example ←

15:23:50 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:24:07 <stain> Luc: Is this document to become a normative document, is it then appropriate to have an example for specific technology like Taverna, or a more neutral example

Luc Moreau: Is this document to become a normative document, is it then appropriate to have an example for specific technology like Taverna, or a more neutral example ←

15:24:26 <stain> Luc: Perhaps don't specify this as part of the specs

Luc Moreau: Perhaps don't specify this as part of the specs ←

15:24:36 <tlebo> can we accumulate tool-specific concrete examples on the wiki?

Timothy Lebo: can we accumulate tool-specific concrete examples on the wiki? ←

15:24:37 <stain> satya: take out Taverna specific details, but follow the scenario in a general way

Satya Sahoo: take out Taverna specific details, but follow the scenario in a general way ←

15:25:47 <stain> stain: Would not include specific Taverna-details, but do a general simplified example for scientific workflows - good because one can also show a diagram of the abstract workflow

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Would not include specific Taverna-details, but do a general simplified example for scientific workflows - good because one can also show a diagram of the abstract workflow ←

15:24:47 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

15:25:05 <dgarijo> I agree with Satya. It is just a Taverna workflow, but could be any scientific workflow system

Daniel Garijo: I agree with Satya. It is just a Taverna workflow, but could be any scientific workflow system ←

15:25:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:26:06 <stain> pgroth: so build another example from the Taverna example, but do a general one?

Paul Groth: so build another example from the Taverna example, but do a general one? ←

15:26:08 <dgarijo> @stain: +1

Daniel Garijo: @stain: +1 ←

15:26:21 <stain> satya: perhaps just a diagram on how Stian could hae extended the ontology, and some explanation

Satya Sahoo: perhaps just a diagram on how Stian could hae extended the ontology, and some explanation ←

15:26:31 <stain> Ilkay: Could also try to validate this from the Kepler point of view

Ilkay Altintas: Could also try to validate this from the Kepler point of view ←

15:26:42 <stain> satya: that would help a lot - you could work with Stian

Satya Sahoo: that would help a lot - you could work with Stian ←

15:27:08 <stain> Ilkay: Will contact Stian

Ilkay Altintas: Will contact Stian ←

15:27:20 <stain> Subtopic: Roles and times - how they can be associated with Used and Generated

15:27:23 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:27:37 <stain> satya: could Luc bring up the initial issue?

Satya Sahoo: could Luc bring up the initial issue? ←

15:27:42 <pgroth> ace Luc

Paul Groth: ace Luc ←

15:27:46 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:28:04 <stain> Luc: Conceptual model defines a type of relationship, Process execution Used an Entity, or an Entity was Generated by an PE

Luc Moreau: Conceptual model defines a type of relationship, Process execution Used an Entity, or an Entity was Generated by an PE ←

15:28:32 <stain> Luc: and there are some properties to those relations, like te notion of "role" which we just call a qualifier in the model, describing the type of interaction

Luc Moreau: and there are some properties to those relations, like te notion of "role" which we just call a qualifier in the model, describing the type of interaction ←

15:28:38 <stain> not just binary relation, an n-ary relation

not just binary relation, an n-ary relation ←

15:28:40 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:28:59 <stain> Luc: Back some years ago in an early OPM serialisation, these n-ary relations was exposed as resources

Luc Moreau: Back some years ago in an early OPM serialisation, these n-ary relations was exposed as resources ←

15:29:13 <stain> there were some comments that it was not a very natural RDFisation

there were some comments that it was not a very natural RDFisation ←

15:29:26 <stain> Luc: OPMV used RDF properties to express those relations

Luc Moreau: OPMV used RDF properties to express those relations ←

15:29:27 <Paolo> q-

Paolo Missier: q- ←

15:29:30 <Zakim> +??P38

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P38 ←

15:29:40 <stain> Luc: Which is fine if you don't talk about roles and times together with Use/Generation

Luc Moreau: Which is fine if you don't talk about roles and times together with Use/Generation ←

15:29:49 <stain> Luc: But what if you want to do this, how would you do this in RDF

Luc Moreau: But what if you want to do this, how would you do this in RDF ←

15:30:02 <Zakim> -??P46

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P46 ←

15:30:14 <stain> satya: what we discussed was to specically have a class Role, we have been discussing how to model this

Satya Sahoo: what we discussed was to specically have a class Role, we have been discussing how to model this ←

15:30:22 <GK1> zakim, ??P38 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P38 is me ←

15:30:22 <Zakim> +GK1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK1; got it ←

15:30:30 <stain> satya: we can use the approach of where a Role is a special type of Entity

Satya Sahoo: we can use the approach of where a Role is a special type of Entity ←

15:30:56 <stain> satya: in the example of Khalid - Khalid as a person, say as a researcher at Univ of Manchester

Satya Sahoo: in the example of Khalid - Khalid as a person, say as a researcher at Univ of Manchester ←

15:31:08 <stain> satya: but Khalid at a restaurant is te role of Customer

Satya Sahoo: but Khalid at a restaurant is te role of Customer ←

15:31:16 <stain> satya: or play football, where he assumes the role of a GoalKeeper

Satya Sahoo: or play football, where he assumes the role of a GoalKeeper ←

15:31:26 <stain> satya: the specialisation that Luc described in a model perspective

Satya Sahoo: the specialisation that Luc described in a model perspective ←

15:31:39 <stain> satya: we are then pushing the specialisation from the property to the entity itself

Satya Sahoo: we are then pushing the specialisation from the property to the entity itself ←

15:31:54 <stain> satya: Khalid can assume these different roles

Satya Sahoo: Khalid can assume these different roles ←

15:31:58 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:32:07 <stain> satya: we can relate entities to these roles - and on the role we can assert things like time, etc.

Satya Sahoo: we can relate entities to these roles - and on the role we can assert things like time, etc. ←

15:32:24 <stain> Paolo: We had a brief discussion with Satya and the rest of the group

Paolo Missier: We had a brief discussion with Satya and the rest of the group ←

15:32:25 <GK1> So what is he at a restaurant talking research with colleagues?

Graham Klyne: So what is he at a restaurant talking research with colleagues? ←

15:32:28 <tlebo> I'm not sure we need to relate the Used entity with a distinct Role - Why not put the role directly on the Used Entity?

Timothy Lebo: I'm not sure we need to relate the Used entity with a distinct Role - Why not put the role directly on the Used Entity? ←

15:32:57 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:32:59 <stain> Paolo: not a relationship, but a persona, an Entity assumes this for the duration of this action

Paolo Missier: not a relationship, but a persona, an Entity assumes this for the duration of this action ←

15:33:02 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:33:13 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:33:20 <stain> Paolo: temporarily assocated to entities by way of specialisation, interesting, but departure from model

Paolo Missier: temporarily assocated to entities by way of specialisation, interesting, but departure from model ←

15:33:25 <dgarijo> @tlebo: you could do that by specializing used, but the role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships

Daniel Garijo: @tlebo: you could do that by specializing used, but the role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships ←

15:33:26 <satya> @GK: Can you please clarify

Satya Sahoo: @GK: Can you please clarify ←

15:33:30 <tlebo> BTW, the notes from the OWL telecon are at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-09-12

Timothy Lebo: BTW, the notes from the OWL telecon are at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-09-12 ←

15:33:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:33:50 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: agree with Paolo.

Khalid Belhajjame: agree with Paolo. ←

15:33:58 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: relationships we are describing are with relation to attributes

Khalid Belhajjame: relationships we are describing are with relation to attributes ←

15:34:14 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if we want to map this, we need to define the relationship in the contextual model as first class citizens

Khalid Belhajjame: if we want to map this, we need to define the relationship in the contextual model as first class citizens ←

15:34:16 <Zakim> -Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh ←

15:34:28 <tlebo> re "role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships" - that is fine and a Good Thing. But let's put the n-ary directly as the Entity that is used by the PE.

Timothy Lebo: re "role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships" - that is fine and a Good Thing. But let's put the n-ary directly as the Entity that is used by the PE. ←

15:34:30 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: Luc said someone stated this as a bad idea.. but..

Khalid Belhajjame: Luc said someone stated this as a bad idea.. but.. ←

15:34:31 <GK1> @Satya - I was thinking that it has been said that there can only be one role used - so if it's applied to the "person", which applies?

Graham Klyne: @Satya - I was thinking that it has been said that there can only be one role used - so if it's applied to the "person", which applies? ←

15:34:39 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if we can't define the relationships as classes in OWL

Khalid Belhajjame: if we can't define the relationships as classes in OWL ←

15:34:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:34:41 <Zakim> +Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh ←

15:34:46 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

15:34:48 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:34:58 <Luc> wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1)

Luc Moreau: wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1) ←

15:35:13 <satya> @GK - no I meant multiple roles can be used

Satya Sahoo: @GK - no I meant multiple roles can be used ←

15:35:13 <dgarijo> @tlebo: it is modeled that way already

Daniel Garijo: @tlebo: it is modeled that way already ←

15:35:18 <GK1> (@Satya - being late joining, I may be missing the point.)

Graham Klyne: (@Satya - being late joining, I may be missing the point.) ←

15:35:28 <stain> @GK1 no, it should be possible to use it in different roles in same PE?

@GK1 no, it should be possible to use it in different roles in same PE? ←

15:35:40 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:35:44 <stain> Luc: Value of the entity at a given port - ordering

Luc Moreau: Value of the entity at a given port - ordering ←

15:35:46 <GK1> @Satya, @Stian: Ah, OK

Graham Klyne: @Satya, @Stian: Ah, OK ←

15:35:51 <stain> Luc: one example we want to support in the model

Luc Moreau: one example we want to support in the model ←

15:36:09 <stain> @GK1 Multiple generation roles for same entity is more interesting :)

@GK1 Multiple generation roles for same entity is more interesting :) ←

15:36:21 <stain> Luc: Role might have been misunderstood - not like in role-based access controlled

Luc Moreau: Role might have been misunderstood - not like in role-based access controlled ←

15:36:32 <stain> Luc: It is given information about the actual usage in the system

Luc Moreau: It is given information about the actual usage in the system ←

15:36:36 <Zakim> - +1.858.210.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.858.210.aacc ←

15:36:38 <dgarijo> @stain, I think that with this approach it is covered too

Daniel Garijo: @stain, I think that with this approach it is covered too ←

15:36:44 <stain> Luc: not sure about satya's notion of Role as subclass of Entity

Luc Moreau: not sure about satya's notion of Role as subclass of Entity ←

15:36:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:36:50 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles ←

15:37:01 <stain> @dgarijo I believe so too

@dgarijo I believe so too ←

15:37:09 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:37:17 <satya> @Luc: yes, we can model the qualifiers using roles as we discussed

Satya Sahoo: @Luc: yes, we can model the qualifiers using roles as we discussed ←

15:37:25 <dgarijo> @stain: they would be 2 roles used by the pe and assumed by the same entity

Daniel Garijo: @stain: they would be 2 roles used by the pe and assumed by the same entity ←

15:37:29 <stain> smiles: about expressibility (???)  - has relationships of roles and time information

Simon Miles: about expressibility (???) - has relationships of roles and time information ←

15:37:32 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:37:37 <stain> (could someone fill in first bit of smiles argument?)

(could someone fill in first bit of smiles argument?) ←

15:38:15 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:38:20 <stain> Paolo: supportive of example Luc gave, good on general req to codify this relationship which won't go away. smiles idea is sensible - two-layer approach where you can express this or not

Paolo Missier: supportive of example Luc gave, good on general req to codify this relationship which won't go away. smiles idea is sensible - two-layer approach where you can express this or not ←

15:38:56 <stain> Paolo: interesting as Satya described it - for the duration of an activity, an entity assumes a persona/role - but I'm afraid..(?) this example. could Satya explain?

Paolo Missier: interesting as Satya described it - for the duration of an activity, an entity assumes a persona/role - but I'm afraid..(?) this example. could Satya explain? ←

15:38:57 <smiles> my argument was to have 2 ontology representations: one is intuitive, maybe relies on reasoning but lacks expressivity; the other allows expression of time on edges etc. but relies on "used" etc being classes

Simon Miles: my argument was to have 2 ontology representations: one is intuitive, maybe relies on reasoning but lacks expressivity; the other allows expression of time on edges etc. but relies on "used" etc being classes ←

15:38:59 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

15:39:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:39:03 <tlebo> @stain - smiles' two layers?

Timothy Lebo: @stain - smiles' two layers? ←

15:39:19 <smiles> (a la OPMV and OPMO)

Simon Miles: (a la OPMV and OPMO) ←

15:39:30 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

15:39:37 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: RDF simon of having two versions - like the notion of roles. If we want to do this properly will not appear in the simplified version, it qualifies the relationship

Khalid Belhajjame: RDF simon of having two versions - like the notion of roles. If we want to do this properly will not appear in the simplified version, it qualifies the relationship ←

15:39:45 <tlebo> I don't think it's about simple vs. complex, it's about whether the extra context (role, time) is asserted on the used Entity or not.

Timothy Lebo: I don't think it's about simple vs. complex, it's about whether the extra context (role, time) is asserted on the used Entity or not. ←

15:39:49 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

15:39:49 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: would it be sensible to have the simplified version in the ontology

Khalid Belhajjame: would it be sensible to have the simplified version in the ontology ←

15:40:00 <stain> @tlebo that makes sense

@tlebo that makes sense ←

15:40:10 <stain> satya: not two versions of ontology, Role should be part of ontology

Satya Sahoo: not two versions of ontology, Role should be part of ontology ←

15:40:18 <stain> satya: question is what the information we are trying to represent

Satya Sahoo: question is what the information we are trying to represent ←

15:40:31 <stain> satya: statements on the entity or on the process execution

Satya Sahoo: statements on the entity or on the process execution ←

15:40:45 <tlebo> satya: two distinct things: (I missed the intro)

Satya Sahoo: two distinct things: (I missed the intro) [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←

15:40:51 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:41:01 <tlebo> qualifier on the relationship vs. qualifier on the entity.

Timothy Lebo: qualifier on the relationship vs. qualifier on the entity. ←

15:41:08 <stain> satya: say entity on port 1, ordering 1 - are these properties on the entity itself - qualifier on the entity, then modelling roles as entity allows us to say this

Satya Sahoo: say entity on port 1, ordering 1 - are these properties on the entity itself - qualifier on the entity, then modelling roles as entity allows us to say this ←

15:41:18 <stain> satya: that entity was the first package on a port

Satya Sahoo: that entity was the first package on a port ←

15:41:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:41:32 <Luc> why is it a qualification of the entity? it's not an attribute of the entity?

Luc Moreau: why is it a qualification of the entity? it's not an attribute of the entity? ←

15:41:33 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:41:55 <stain> @Luc agree - and an entity can be used for multiple roles wit different properties

@Luc agree - and an entity can be used for multiple roles wit different properties ←

15:42:06 <stain> like a hammer used both for hammering nails and pulling them out

like a hammer used both for hammering nails and pulling them out ←

15:42:06 <Luc> @stain, indeed

Luc Moreau: @stain, indeed ←

15:42:33 <stain> (but you could say those are two views of the hammer?)

(but you could say those are two views of the hammer?) ←

15:42:43 <tlebo> Does this work?    :my_pe prov:used [ a prov:Entity; prov:actually :Khalid; a prov:Role, a restaurant:Customer, time:begin :t1, time:end :t2 ] ?

Timothy Lebo: Does this work? :my_pe prov:used [ a prov:Entity; prov:actually :Khalid; a prov:Role, a restaurant:Customer, time:begin :t1, time:end :t2 ] ? ←

15:43:09 <stain> Paolo: (..) complex bit you need to make explicit. that data was produced.. (?)

Paolo Missier: (..) complex bit you need to make explicit. that data was produced.. (?) ←

15:43:17 <stain> @tlebo that is satya's proposal, yes

@tlebo that is satya's proposal, yes ←

15:43:27 <stain> @tlebo kind of like ORE proxies

@tlebo kind of like ORE proxies ←

15:43:46 <stain> satya: (..) customer left the restaurant at this point in time, etc.

Satya Sahoo: (..) customer left the restaurant at this point in time, etc. ←

15:43:54 <stain> Paolo: we don't have this in the abstract model

Paolo Missier: we don't have this in the abstract model ←

15:44:01 <stain> satya: possibly need to bring this up to the WG

Satya Sahoo: possibly need to bring this up to the WG ←

15:44:12 <tlebo> @stain, thanks, I agree with this approach. Before Monday's telecon with Luc, I conceived of Role and the used Entity as distinct (but I don't like that difference without a purpose).

Timothy Lebo: @stain, thanks, I agree with this approach. Before Monday's telecon with Luc, I conceived of Role and the used Entity as distinct (but I don't like that difference without a purpose). ←

15:44:12 <stain> Paolo: like the idea of qualifying entities, bu tneed to bring this into the language and discuss this

Paolo Missier: like the idea of qualifying entities, bu tneed to bring this into the language and discuss this ←

15:44:40 <stain> pgroth: no final agreement, but conversation! Need to move on on the agenda

Paul Groth: no final agreement, but conversation! Need to move on on the agenda ←

15:44:57 <stain> Subtopic: How can we identify attributes of an entity

15:45:06 <stain> Luc: Identify an entity and attribute (key-value pairs)

Luc Moreau: Identify an entity and attribute (key-value pairs) ←

15:45:19 <stain> Luc: these describe something constant int he world during the duration of the entity's existence

Luc Moreau: these describe something constant int he world during the duration of the entity's existence ←

15:45:25 <dgarijo> if anyone is interested to particiate, we have our ontology telecon on Mondays :)

Daniel Garijo: if anyone is interested to particiate, we have our ontology telecon on Mondays :) ←

15:45:31 <stain> Luc: Need to know which attributes have been "stamped" on the entity to characterise it

Luc Moreau: Need to know which attributes have been "stamped" on the entity to characterise it ←

15:45:41 <stain> Luc: Don't know how to find these attributes with the OWL mapping

Luc Moreau: Don't know how to find these attributes with the OWL mapping ←

15:45:55 <stain> Luc: Some examples were discussed, Stian had one proposal, but don't know if this has been incorporated

Luc Moreau: Some examples were discussed, Stian had one proposal, but don't know if this has been incorporated ←

15:45:56 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:46:47 <GK> @Stian, that sounds like reading too much into anonimiy of a node

Graham Klyne: @Stian, that sounds like reading too much into anonimiy of a node ←

15:46:52 <tlebo> The entity need NOT be a bnode/anonymous. It can be named with a URI (the bnodes in examples are a shorthand).

Timothy Lebo: The entity need NOT be a bnode/anonymous. It can be named with a URI (the bnodes in examples are a shorthand). ←

15:47:12 <GK> ... you can assign a new URI a an anlymous node without changing the meaning

Graham Klyne: ... you can assign a new URI a an anlymous node without changing the meaning ←

15:47:13 <tlebo> *used Entity

Timothy Lebo: *used Entity ←

15:48:10 <stain> Stian: suggested :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ]

Stian Soiland-Reyes: suggested :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ←

15:48:12 <Luc> we could use named graphs to "wrap" the attributes

Luc Moreau: we could use named graphs to "wrap" the attributes ←

15:48:47 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to introduce Properties or Attributes into the formal model - or characterized-by, descibed-by

Khalid Belhajjame: to introduce Properties or Attributes into the formal model - or characterized-by, descibed-by ←

15:49:09 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:49:12 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: then it can be instances of this - distinguish characterized attributes and other supplemental

Khalid Belhajjame: then it can be instances of this - distinguish characterized attributes and other supplemental ←

15:49:15 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

15:49:36 <tlebo> How would :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ]     handle :entity prov:??  <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> . (MY _actual_ URI,not a description of me)

Timothy Lebo: How would :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] handle :entity prov:?? <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> . (MY _actual_ URI,not a description of me) ←

15:49:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: what is the scenario given - most of the time attributes on the entity will be part of characterizing it

Khalid Belhajjame: what is the scenario given - most of the time attributes on the entity will be part of characterizing it ←

15:49:37 <GK> @Stian :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ; [ :location "London" ; :color :blue ] . is also valid?

Graham Klyne: @Stian :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ; [ :location "London" ; :color :blue ] . is also valid? ←

15:50:11 <stain> @GK - no, it has granularity 1 so that those nodes would be merged

@GK - no, it has granularity 1 so that those nodes would be merged ←

15:50:29 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: not quite clear yet..

Khalid Belhajjame: not quite clear yet.. ←

15:50:38 <stain> Luc: Might have a series of properties your thing has. Like a colour

Luc Moreau: Might have a series of properties your thing has. Like a colour ←

15:50:41 <GK> @stian quite - just clarifying.

Graham Klyne: @stian quite - just clarifying. ←

15:50:42 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.512.524.aabb ←

15:50:43 <stain> Luc: (car colour example)

Luc Moreau: (car colour example) ←

15:50:49 <stain> @GK it is an important point

@GK it is an important point ←

15:50:51 <tlebo> :entity :charactizedBy [ owl:sameAs  <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> ]  . # would fit, but is a bit indirect.

Timothy Lebo: :entity :charactizedBy [ owl:sameAs <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo> ] . # would fit, but is a bit indirect. ←

15:51:05 <stain> Luc: It is an active assertion by the asserter to say that some attributes were constant.

Luc Moreau: It is an active assertion by the asserter to say that some attributes were constant. ←

15:51:15 <stain> Luc: The asserter might not care about colour, but talk about registration of the car

Luc Moreau: The asserter might not care about colour, but talk about registration of the car ←

15:51:30 <stain> Luc: Although the colour is recorded, it might not be part oft he characterisation made by the asserter

Luc Moreau: Although the colour is recorded, it might not be part oft he characterisation made by the asserter ←

15:51:51 <stain> Luc: We want to distinguish what the asserter says characterizes an entity or other props

Luc Moreau: We want to distinguish what the asserter says characterizes an entity or other props ←

15:52:02 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: so someone else added the colour attribute?

Khalid Belhajjame: so someone else added the colour attribute? ←

15:52:03 <stain> Luc: right

Luc Moreau: right ←

15:52:11 <stain> pgroth: how to write this down in OWL.. given the time

Paul Groth: how to write this down in OWL.. given the time ←

15:52:13 <tlebo> Luc's point about distinguishing between assertions of provenance maker and OTHER assertions about the same thing - this is handled by placing those attributess on the used :Entity, no?

Timothy Lebo: Luc's point about distinguishing between assertions of provenance maker and OTHER assertions about the same thing - this is handled by placing those attributess on the used :Entity, no? ←

15:52:23 <stain> pgroth: we can keep discussing this on mailing list and move on to conceptual model agenda item

Paul Groth: we can keep discussing this on mailing list and move on to conceptual model agenda item ←

15:52:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:52:33 <stain> TOPIC: Conceptual Model

<pgroth> Summary: Paolo and Luc gave an update on their progress on revising the Conceptual Model Document. Significant updates have been made to try and address a number of issues. The aim is to release an updated version on Monday.

15:52:44 <GK> Update recent?

15:52:52 <stain> Paolo: moving forward with Luc

15:53:06 <stain> Paolo: on track for internal release tomorrow

15:53:12 <Luc> we should go for Monday release, realistically

15:53:27 <stain> Paolo: few things in flux, a section on providing a high-level overview of model

15:53:30 <stain> Paolo: working on that

15:53:45 <stain> Paolo: adding a more precise description on what we mean by collections and relationships to support collection membership

15:54:03 <stain> Luc: spent some time thinking about entities, following issues/emails by GK

15:54:12 <GK> Good, I look forward to seeing the update.

15:54:21 <stain> Luc: we came to a resolution here, a reasonable way to talk about entities

15:54:32 <stain> Luc: Using them in the document

15:54:33 <GK> "here" is earlier this telecon?

15:54:42 <stain> (sorry I am not sure)

15:54:53 <stain> Paolo: discussion on Account - coming along

15:55:16 <stain> Paolo: shift in view from Roles and Attributes - perhaps most of the things you talk about can be qualified by attributes (key/values)

15:55:19 <stain> Paolo: some extension point

15:55:31 <stain> Paolo: one way to extend the model is to add attribute value/pairs to a profile for instance

15:55:38 <stain> Paolo: define how those are used

15:55:46 <stain> Paolo: one consequence is the discussion on wasGeneratedBy

15:55:51 <stain> Paolo: also on Account

15:56:03 <stain> Paolo: can be nested inside each other - scoping rules

15:56:19 <stain> Paolo: getting complex.. giving ourselves a few more days

15:56:22 <pgroth> q?

15:56:24 <stain> pgroth: any questions

15:56:25 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

15:56:26 <Luc> "here" was "at our meeting Paolo and I"

15:56:39 <satya> q+

15:56:40 <GK> @luc thanks

15:56:42 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: in two weeks time would like to have.. (? )

15:56:57 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: how would this work - we raise issues towards the doc in one week and other week..? We only have two weeks!

15:57:04 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: should plan how to manage issues

15:57:04 <Luc> q+

15:57:08 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to make it for the deadline

15:57:23 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

15:57:31 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:57:35 <stain> Luc: to raise issues with the tracker

15:57:44 <stain> Luc: realistically we will not address them all by end of Monday or the 29th

15:57:50 <stain> Luc: there will still be work to be done

15:58:05 <stain> Luc: want to have it in a state where we can say it is our first public working draft with clearly identified/marked issues

15:58:15 <pgroth> ack satya

15:58:19 <stain> satya: can we also have a (?)

15:58:29 <stain> satya: if Luc/Paolo meets to have a telcon

15:58:38 <stain> Luc: meeting Paolo in London next week

15:58:40 <stain> Luc: rest by email

15:58:56 <stain> Luc: can schedule a telecon if that is wanted

15:59:05 <stain> satya: or just a skype call so we can listen in

15:59:13 <stain> Paolo: we don't have a regular call, but can set one up

15:59:22 <stain> Paolo: or join your ontology call on Mondays

15:59:25 <satya> great thanks!

15:59:34 <stain> pgroth: ok, need to end now for next telcon! (RDF WG)

15:59:36 <Zakim> -dgarijo

15:59:37 <Zakim> -tlebo

15:59:38 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

15:59:39 <Zakim> -??P61

15:59:39 <Zakim> -Luc

15:59:40 <stain> pgroth: see you all next week

15:59:40 <Zakim> -??P0

15:59:41 <Zakim> -Sandro

15:59:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

15:59:42 <dgarijo> goodbye!

15:59:43 <Zakim> -??P15

15:59:47 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaee

15:59:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

15:59:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html pgroth

15:59:49 <Zakim> -Vinh

15:59:51 <Zakim> -Yogesh

15:59:52 <stain> pgroth: will you do the magic bit of the wiki?

15:59:52 <Zakim> -??P14

15:59:55 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

15:59:56 <sandro> quick break before rdf/prov telecon!

16:00:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

16:00:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

16:00:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:00:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:00:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

16:00:06 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-actions.rdf :

16:00:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Satya to Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [1]

16:00:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-irc#T15-09-24

16:00:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Duncan, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, Sandro, +1.512.524.aabb, MacTed, Paolo, khalidbelhajjame, Vinh, +1.858.210.aacc,