PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 01 Sep 2011
PROV-ISSUE-84 (namespace-for-properties): What should namespace for properties be? [Formal Model]
Provenance requirements for RDF named graphs
formal semantics strawman
Provenance model document is over-complicated and hard to understand
ISSUE-83: Express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology
PROV-ISSUE-82 (pidm-event): Should we introduce a notion of event in the data model? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]
[PAQ] rel="me"
Weekly Connection Task Force Call - each Monday
PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 25 August 2011
PROV-ISSUE-80 (about-provenance-template): Query about provenance template [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Guidelines for the Connection Task Force Report
PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
closing issues for the Model Document
Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-59 (generation-definition): on generation [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]
CIDOC-CRM Ontology
test message please ignore
cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model
- Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model
regrets for telecon 8/18, 8/25, and stakeholder questionnaire status update
PAQ document update, target renamed as context
- RE: PAQ document update, target renamed as context
- Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context
Updated stakeholders survey on wiki, need to compile list of communities to inform when survey goes live
- Re: Updated stakeholders survey on wiki, need to compile list of communities to inform when survey goes live
- Regrets ...
Telecon Agenda Aug 18, 2011
[paq] using anchor or different links
playing with pil ontology
- Re: playing with pil ontology
- Re: playing with pil ontology
- Re: playing with pil ontology
Minutes of Aug. 11 2011 Telecon
PROV-ISSUE-74: Consider renaming target-uri as context-uri to be consistent with RFC 5988 [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-73: Use "anchor" context URI instead of introducing a "target" relationship in HTTP [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model]
updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- views, complements and invariants (was: updates to PAQ doc for discussion)
- RE: views, complements and invariants (was: updates to PAQ doc for discussion)
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
- Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
Telecon Agenda Aug 11, 2011
defining shortcuts and extensions
Connection Task Force Conference Call
Discussion focus for the next two weeks
defining shortcuts and extensions
- Re: defining shortcuts and extensions
- Re: defining shortcuts and extensions
- Re: defining shortcuts and extensions
call for new question ideas for the 2nd implementation stakeholder questionnaire
name of standards - responses
naming the standard
PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): What is a PE? (was) Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]
provenance model document
Meeting minutes 2011-08-04
PAQ: revised section on querying
Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model]
Dates for second F2F
PAQ: further revision of simple HTTP interface for discovery (ISSUE 53)
Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
scribe required for teleconference
PROV-ISSUE-70 (provenance-term): PAQ document uses inconsistent terminology for "provenance"
PAQ closing issues
Re: PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model]
Prov WG Telecon Agenda 04 August 2011
RE: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of
Straw Poll - Naming the Provenance Standard
Minutes from July 28, 2011 Telecon
Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model]
Re: relation <--> property
PROV-ISSUE-68 (http-link-domain): Domain of HTTP links with rel=provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
[PAQ] editorial issues
Re: PROV-ISSUE-53 (sparql-query-is-overkill): can't we have a lighter method to retrieve provenance-uri, given a document uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- RE: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- RE: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)
- Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT)