irc/zakim nick name
prov-wg mercurial error
PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
resolution about pil:Entity/pil:BOB
PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-63 (about the example): about the example [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-59 (generation-definition): on generation [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of
PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-54 (which-provenance-is-expected-to-be-retrieved?): What is it we expect to obtain when we say "retrieving the provenance of something" [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Review of provenance model draft
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-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-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-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-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-53 (sparql-query-is-overkill): can't we have a lighter method to retrieve provenance-uri, given a document uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
regrets
Closed Actions
PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
relation <--> property
Provenance Model (ontology and formal model documentation)
PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model]
Prov WG Telecon Agenda 28 July 2011
Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]
Identity and a thing
OECD Paper
W3C Privacy Interest Group
blimey! is it just me or someone just kicked the W3C mail server?
Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Meeting Minutes 2011-07-21
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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model]
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]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not 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-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not 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-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-37: Section 3.3 and Section 3.4: on provenance information specified by third-parties [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Provenance Model draft document
irc handle
PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [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-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [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-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent"
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent"
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent"
PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-31 (standard-names): what names do we use to refer to the language, ontology, and access/query methods [Conceptual Model]
PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- RE: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
implementation task force plan and telco
Access control for "Implementation Stakeholder Questionnaire Response Report"
Formal semantics notes
PAQ draft in W3C repository
Planning page for generating the 2nd iteration of the Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire
Apologies for not attending tomorrow's meeting...
Status of Plan for Report on Results of Implementation Stakeholders Questionnaire
Prov WG Telecon Agenda 21 July 2011
long list of actions
Blog post on F2F
Re: Agent terminology
simon:ivpOf
simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: [Spam:***** SpamScore] Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
- Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable)
FW: the nature of a bob (was Re: Models and their use)
re: IVPof proposal (was Re: Models and their use)
Agent Sub-Types
Fwd: Fwd: Discontinuing UK and FR dial-in numbers for Zakim
Bobs, IVP and time intervals
Connection to semantic news group
Prov WG Telecon Agenda 14 July 2011
Models and their use
- Re: Models and their use
- Re: Models and their use
- Re: Models and their use
- Re: Models and their use
- Re: Models and their use
Access plan for next 3 months
change in my email
Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes?
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes?
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes?
- Agent terminology (was: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes?)
who is who?
PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]
Homework for Connection Task Force and Interested Parties!
data transformations named by Ontology for Biomedical Investigations
f2f1 whiteboard image
Provenance Access Query example
ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity
- RE: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity
ISSUE-27: Consider ordering of event in model and semantics
PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?
Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline
ISSUE-25: Semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2
ISSUE-24: Semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)"
ISSUE-23: Create definition of involve to replace Use
ISSUE-22: We lose which entity was used to generate which entity.
Implementation TF F2F1 Presentation
Prov WG F2F Agenda 6-7 July 2011
Consolidated Concepts page
Meeting Minutes 2011-06-30
Dietary Requirements for Lunch at Meeting Next Week
Introduction + Comments on Concepts
Re: Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire approval
- Task forces - brief presentations
- Re: Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire approval