IW Meeting 2013-10-24

From Inference Web

Jump to: navigation, search

IW Meeting 2013-10-24

Contents

Meeting Information

Agenda

  • TODO: Tim make pml:Map modeling for mapping {literals, resources} to {literals, resources}
    • done: Cynthia to email Paulo. Paulo has none beyond the Wikipedia.

Attendees

Deborah Tim Paulo Cynthia Jim

Regrets: Patrice Patrick West

Meeting Preparation

Around the room

* Add a section for yourself 2 hours before meeting.
* Mark any discussion point that you would like to raise during meeting (with DURING MEETING). 
* Otherwise, assume that others will read the rest before meeting. 
* Also, please be considerate and read others' discussion points before the meeting starts.

Tim

Data Sculptor is doing a lot of mix-initiative RDF manipulations that will need to steal all of the provenance work that we've done over the past 4 years.

Jim

James

Cynthia

Paulo

Financial trust application.

Consumer buys stuff from a company online. Company sees something in their inventory. Invoice was issues, but you need to pack and ship it. Verify that the carrier delivered the package. Notify the customer about each of these steps.

Enabling the above with PROV.

Doing the same for any workflow in a company's many workflows. Control the workflow from the events.

Tim: Do you mean that workflow components trigger themselves by finding PROV assertions about their dependency's result?

Patrice

Patrick

Deborah

  • Proposal writing dominates: all have provenance pieces
    • smart and connected health proposal
    • internal RPI mount sinai proposals
    • nih big data proposal
    • nih melagrid proposal
    • possible with anesthiologists at mount sinai
    • possible with genetic sequencing data with mount sinai
    • possible with social media interested doctor (talking tomorrow)
    • jefferson project starting up again - kickoff this past wed

Discussions

Belief is by Agents of Information

Paulo: Belief is about intention.

Trust is by Agents of Entities (which includes Information)

e.g. "I trust that US Dollars is .6 Australian Dollars"

Trusting an "information container" w/o knowing what it contains. This is the case where you do know what what is in the container, but there is a good probability that you will believe anything that comes out of the container.

99% of the the things NYTimes says I have believed, so I trust NYTimes b/c I will likely believe the next thing that it says.

We can trust Agents, InformationContainers. Can we trust my Chair? For a particular use of sitting down. Trusted to not do certain things: either physical or providing information.

PROPOSED: only InformationContainers may be trusted (no longer Entities such as Chair for physically sitting) This settles to a nice parallel with the distinction betwen Information and InformationContainers. It also helps describe the difference between Information and InformationContainer ("Information can be believed, but you can't trust it; InformationContainers can be trusted but not believed") We CANNOT trust physical chairs for the use of physically supporting our physical weight -- this is beyond the scope of our ontology that is focused on "Information, Q&A, and proofs" -- physical use of physical things is out of the scope for PML 3. It is okay to trust an Agent, it's just that you're trusting it as an InformationContainer. It's perfectly okay to models Agents as InformationContainers in addition to being an Agent.

Agent that is not an InformationContainer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4 (the most useless device ever)

Historical example was the Wikipedia trust.

Facts about IW Meeting 2013-10-24RDF feed
Date17 October 2013  +
Personal tools
Navigation