dc-provenance

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Actions: 

  * ACTION: Create Starting Point for Extration (Ömer)
  * ACTION: Extending and correcting the summary (All but Ömer)
  * ACTION: Provide new examples, including possibly feedback of Antoine (Kai)
  * ACTION: Try to find real-world models of OPM (Daniel)


Minutes:
  * [16:03] <kai> Agenda: http://wiki.bib.uni-mannheim.de/dc-provenance/doku.php?id=agenda
  * [16:03] <oemer> Topic: Housekeeping
  * [16:08] <kai> Result 1: Ömer is scribe per default.
  * [16:09] <oemer> michaelp: suggestion for new intervall for telecons (every 2 weeks)
  * [16:09] <kai> Result 2: Kai will keep track of sending agendas and announcing new meetings
  * [16:10] <kai> Result 3: Telcos are not necessarily every week, will be decided at end of ech telco
  * [16:10] <michaelp2> s/Result/Resolution
  * [16:11] <kai> Topic: Summary of the group work so far
  * [16:11] <kai> Link: http://wiki.bib.uni-mannheim.de/dc-provenance/doku.php?id=agenda
  * [16:11] <kai> Link: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1xEdXn95l6TFINtaEmJj45YzzRuqPMqeSit6_MUzHdm0&hl=en&authkey=COSCnIAO&pli=1#
  * [16:16] <oemer> Extending and correcting the summary
  * [16:17] <oemer> ACTION: Create Starting Point for Extration (Ömer)
  * [16:17] <kai> ACTION: Extending and correcting the summary
  * [16:18] <kai> Topic: Europeana Example
  * [16:18] <kai> Link: http://wiki.bib.uni-mannheim.de/dc-provenance/doku.php?id=europeana_example
  * [16:20] <oemer> Kai: Main resource in the center, describing resources around; 2 proxies (above and below the center): 2 aggregations
  * [16:21] <oemer> ... Question to Antoine: Why is the view in the center?
  * [16:22] <oemer> michaelp: aggregation is what they would recieve as a data packet (what EDM expects)
  * [16:24] <oemer> ... I think the aggregation shold be part of it
  * [16:25] <oemer> Kai: Proxy as a placeholder for resource of Mona Lisa painting; Aggregation as a placeholder for record of the painting
  * [16:26] <oemer> michaelp: The painting has this URI; the aggregation can contain more
  * [16:29] <oemer> Kai: Question is: What would be appropiate to represent same data wic is intuitive
  * [16:30] <oemer> ... Could this data be generated directly out of the model whith rules we merge out of the resource
  * [16:32] <oemer> michaelp: Proxy here has the utility of enabling talking about the aggregate resource. Cutting proxy out is good a idea
  * [16:35] <oemer> Kai: It's like always in DC, we lose Information. Idea: Whatever it is actually done, we want to know evertyhing possible to know, to distinguish between sources
  * [16:36] <oemer> ... should be possible to provide a simple approach like the DC.
  * [16:38] <oemer> michaelp: They would have anything except the proxy anyway. Would have the aggregated resources. If only created for prov we could cut it out.
  * [16:39] <oemer> Kai: I will find out what the Idea of aggregation is
  * [16:40] <oemer> ACTION: Asking Antoine (Kai)
  * [16:40] <oemer> Kai: Finding out role between proxy and aggregation
  * [16:45] <oemer> michaelp: Dashbox: We have to make an assumption between the box and the content of the box
  * [16:46] <oemer> Kai: It is just a graph, named somehow. Like prov information, We can know sth, about who cretaed information. Like resource.
  * [16:48] <oemer> ACTION: Provide new examples (Kai=
  * [16:49] <oemer> Kai: Idea is to give very simple rules. Tell people why to do that this way.
  * [16:52] <oemer> michaelp: Relation betwenn ORI web resource and painting
  * [16:52] <oemer> Kai: Maybe we need some vocab to express, and how it can be done in a simple way
  * [16:55] <kai> Topic: Introduction to OPM (Daniel)
  * [16:55] <@DGarijo> http://www.slideshare.net/dgarijo/opm-overview
  * [16:57] <oemer> Daniel: No use of ontology cover source -> they nevertheless did it
  * [16:58] <oemer> ... artifatcs like snapshots of processes
  * [17:12] <oemer> michaelp: What is OPM lacking
  * [17:13] <oemer> Daniel: The notion of account is abstract. COuld be a part of the graph, but it may have more than one graph. eg If you are an agent and are participating in more than one OPM graph
  * [17:14] <oemer> ... Would be better to extent the notion of annotation. eg sth. to disacount / filter prov by source
  * [17:15] <oemer> Kai: What do we want to accomplish. In whic apps could OPM be used. e.g. could Europeane use OPM,
  * [17:17] <oemer> ... OPM is somewhat incomplete.
  * [17:20] <oemer> ACTION: Try to find real-world models of OPM (Daniel)
  * [17:28] <oemer> Kai: Try to find a model which is simple enough; just for outside users.
  * [17:29] <kai> Topic: Domain Model
  * [17:29] <@DGarijo> Just one thing: artifacts can be snapshots of dynamic objects, n ot processes ;)
  * [17:30] <oemer> ok, sorry :)
  * [17:31] <@DGarijo> np, i spoke too fast :(
  * [17:32] <oemer> no, it's just hard for me to keep track, i could understand you very well
  * [17:33] <@DGarijo> ok!
  * [17:36] <oemer> Kai: Do we need the metadate annotation set?
  * [17:38] <oemer> michaelp: The description set would be sth. like a named graph. You would have an URI for the annotations set.
  * [17:39] <oemer> ... You would have a way of gouping them together which makes sense
  * [17:39] <oemer> Kai: Possibility to describe a description set in RDF
  * [17:40] <oemer> michaelp: Depends on how to model you desc. set
  * [17:44] <oemer> Kai: Focusing on examples