See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 December 2009
<Danh_DERI> i've just join the call
<Holger> Hi Danh!
<Danh_DERI> Hi Holger
<Payam> Zakim IPCaller is me
<Holger> Hi Laurent
Regrets from Luis via ssn-xg mailing list
Holger, I can scribe
<Holger> ScribeNick: laurent_oz
Luis to be here for the first 10 minutes
Holger has set up the tracker
Holger: Process is to file change request via tracker (add link)
Holger: we need to precise which ontology we start from
Oscar: Raul has added an extension but we should start with the one from Michael and process the changes from Raul through the tracker
Holger: decision to start with the one from Michael
Arthur: it is possible to set up WebProtege
Holger: webProtege is the preferred solution
Danh: wants more precision on the process: how do we start - do we make the changes in the ontology first or file request for changes first,
Luis: possible to start the process from a version hosted on the MMI repository
Luis: process is to publish issues, discuss then and then use the f2f meeting to approve them / approve the changes
Danh: use the tracker to add new concepts or suggestion for changes then it is discussed then the originator of the changes make the changes
Michael: The process is more
adapted to the cases where the ontology is hosted in MMI
repository but we may not take advantage of the features of
... WebProtege may enable richer collaboration
Oscar asked to comment if it is possible to work with it live?
Oscar: It is possible to add annotations. Thinks using the MMI is sufficient to what we do. At some stage we can upgrade the process to WebProtege.
Arthur: We plan to have a specific machine to support the SSN-XG tools. Will appreciate any advice from Oscar on how to install it
Laurent: Q. Are we all using the same tools or not?
Holger: The free and the commercial edition of TopBraid changes the file structure.
Michael: We will have to accept that the versioning (the diff) won't necessary work.
Holger: Let's do what we say. Start with Michael's version sent last week. Everyone to file changes through the tracker. Michael to file the changes. Does everyone agree?
Oscar not yet started
Laurent: Use cases contains the literature structured according to the group activity : ontology and markup
Tables differentiate between Sensor, Data and Process sub-uses cases (used separately or together)
Cory: for the markup we initially focus on the service annotations
Laurent (continued): Literature review list paper accordding to three main categories
Laurent: Describes Use cases
provenance first pass on the use cases description
... difference between provenance and composition
Manfred: in provenance (db-world) there is a different use of provenance (e.g. authenticity) Do not see
Laurent: use case focuses on scientific diagnose
Raul: the provenance information may also help the user to select the information, choose the sensor
<Manfred_DERI> Peter Buneman
Peter Buneman one of the authority for provenance in databases.
Manfred: we should check wether the provenance defs used elsewehere are applicable (and sufficient) for the SSN-XG
<krp> Potentially also: http://openprovenance.org/
Laurent: changes in the semantic markup pages (review of papers and their use of XLink)
See also the slides for the rest of the discussion
Cory: identify where and why annotate first and then how
Payam: 3 different tasks: work on the ontology (content and present it) and last stage is of we use it ("map" it)
Cory: Sem Markup to be driven by
the use cases. Plan to reuse the same use cases: sensor
discovery, data discovery.
... We also look first at how to bring the data in RDF
Danh: Focus on the SWE standards - what if the data is externalised in a different approach (e.g. a REST service)?
Danh: There are approaches which don't use OGC specs: e.g. SensorPedia ...
Cory: We will not limit the work to SWE/SOS services. Group to suggest other example of services which should be considered
Danh: the methodology should be more general and supports other format like RSS (e.g. Yahoo Weather). Will the annotation methodology work on these cases?
Cory: this is a question at the technical level: we look at what works on top of services using XML.
Danh: risk that the user will
think their use cases are not covered by the ontology and the
... need to add that we cover other requirements
Laurent: my paper covers any type of REST services
<krp> Yes, I agree with Cory. Most of the annotation techs can deal with most (all?) flavours of XML, and while the best practice will be general obviously the specific annotations will be specific - and we don't want to spread too thin.
Kerry: the charter defines the work we do and it's the SWE context first.
Kevin: it may not necessary to document multiple XML flavors
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: laurent_oz Inferring Scribes: laurent_oz WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Holger, +1.206.662.aabb, Payam, [IPcaller], Arthur, ocorcho, +1.267.481.aacc, michael, krp, ssahoo2 Present: Holger +1.206.662.aabb Payam [IPcaller] Arthur ocorcho +1.267.481.aacc michael krp ssahoo2 Regrets: Luis Simon Found Date: 08 Dec 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ssn-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]