W3C

- DRAFT -

Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group Teleconference

02 Feb 2010

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Holger, Payam, AdrianP, Arthur, krzysztof_j, Manfred_DERI, krp, kelsey, michael, kerry, cory, [IPcaller]
Regrets
Luis
Chair
Holger
Scribe
kelsey, kelsey2, kelsey3, Payam

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 02 February 2010

<Manfred_DERI> i may have to leave early today (and possibly abrupt) - 2 sick kids ...

<Manfred_DERI> sorry

<Holger> not a problem

<laurent_oz> [IPcaller] is laurent_oz

<Holger> ScribeNick: kelsey

<Holger> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/charter#deliverables

<kelsey2> Holger, lost my irc connection under kelsey (currently scribe) and am reconnected under kelsey2

<Holger> ScribeNick: kelsey2

<krp> 2. How mappings can be constructed both from these ontolgies to existing standards and from suitably annotated documents complying with existing standards to the ontologies.

<krp> +q

discussion of 2nd deliverable: leave as-is, remove, re-write (also discussion re: "harmonizing", see mailing list).

<laurent_oz> See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/The_Report_in_Progress#Deliverables

<kelsey3> Holger, back again as kelsey3

<Holger> ScribeNick: kelsey3

<michael> +q

<krzysztof_j> ack

<Holger> vote on option 'do not change wording of del 2'

<Payam> -1

<krp> -1

<Holger> -1

-1

<michael> -1

<Manfred_DERI> -1

<cory> -1

<kerry> -1

<Danh_DERI> -1

<laurent_oz> 0

<krzysztof_j> 0

<Holger> vote on option 'delete del 2'

<krp> What is the deliverable (specifically) in "demonstrate"?

<krp> So in the latter demonstrate = document (ok)

<Holger> vote on option 'delete del 2'

<krzysztof_j> -1

<Payam> -1

<krp> -1

<michael> -1

<laurent_oz> -1

<cory> -1

<Arthur> -1

<kerry> -1

<Holger> -1

<Danh_DERI> -1

<Manfred_DERI> -1

<Payam> I can do this

<Manfred_DERI> thanks!

<Holger> ScribeNick: Payam

we decided to change the wording for deliverable 2

and we decided not to delet it

option3: demonstrate its relationships to OGC sensor web enablement standards

Kerry: this very close to what we are currently doing

<krzysztof_j> (maybe "investigate" instead of "demonstrate" as demonstrate sound like having many examples, demos,....)

<krp> Demonstrating the relationship to OGC SWE doesn't preclude demonstrating the relationship to anything else or more specific... just sets our minimum... so good to keep it open like this

Kerry: to use the word demonstrate

<krzysztof_j> +q

<krp> (and yes, krzysztof, demonstrate comes across the same to me)

Holger: demostrating the relationships with examples?

<Manfred_DERI> investigate sounds very weak to me without us expecting a clear outcome

Kerry: no, using examples plus using referencing to other standards and documenting where the terms and concepts come from

<Manfred_DERI> i.e., no commitment

<krp> Also think it's good to keep this distinct from the annotation in the 3rd deliverable.

krzysztof_j: Demonstrate may be an application oriented context, e.g a prototype

<krp> Document? (though of course, that comes from the context of being in a document!)

<Manfred_DERI> +q

<krzysztof_j> and how do you show?

<krp> with a mapping? ;)

<krzysztof_j> ;-)

Manfred: Demonstrate is showing the approach showing that it works not nessaccerily providing an implmentation
... we don not need to do a formal evaluation

<Manfred_DERI> -q

Manfred: evaluate will be too formal

<Manfred_DERI> also weak, IMHO

<Manfred_DERI> +q

descibe would be a weak terminology

What about illustrate?

<krzysztof_j> ack

<Manfred_DERI> +1

<krp> +1

now we have suggestions to use words "demonstrate" or "illustrate"

voting on "illustrate", "describe", "demonstrate", "document", "investigate",

"evaluate"

we have a vonte on illustrate and demonstrate:

the proposal is illusatrate

ye

<krzysztof_j> +1 (illustrate)

<krp> +1

<Manfred_DERI> +1

<cory> +1

+1

<michael> 0

<Arthur> +1

<Danh_DERI> +1(illustrate)

<Holger> 0

<laurent_oz> 0

the word will be "illustrate"

The phrase is "illustrates it relationships to OGC Sensor Web Enablement standards

<michael> +1

"illustrates itsw relationships to OGC Sensor Web Enablement standards

<michael> ...it's

<michael> sorry 'its'

<Manfred_DERI> +1

+1

we are voting on " illustrates its relationships to OGC Sensor Web Enablement standards

<Manfred_DERI> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<Arthur> +1

<krp> +1

<Danh_DERI> +1

<cory> +1

+1

<michael> +1

<laurent_oz> 0

<Holger> +1

<kerry> +1

we agreed on the phrase: " illustrates its relationships to OGC Sensor Web Enablement standards

we now discuss how long to extend

we are voting on:

we request WC3 to extend the term of the Incubator group

<Holger> +1

let's vote:

+1

<kerry> +1

<krp> +1

<Arthur> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<Manfred_DERI> +1`

<cory> +1

<Danh_DERI> 0

<laurent_oz> +1

We agreed to request for an extention

the 2nd issue: how long to extend to

Kerry: 6 month?

<laurent_oz> +q

months

<Manfred_DERI> I am not sure if we will get 6 months

<Manfred_DERI> did other XGs get 6 months?

<Manfred_DERI> if we want 6 months we have to provide a clear time plan IMHO

Kerry: we can apply for a 4 to 6 months extention

+q

<Manfred_DERI> +q

<Manfred_DERI> -q

<Manfred_DERI> ok, that sounds ok then

sounds ok

voting on 6 months extention

+1

<Danh_DERI> +1

<Manfred_DERI> +1

<Arthur> +1

<krp> +1

<cory> +1

<Holger> +1

<kerry> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<michael> +1

<laurent_oz> +1

We agreed to request for a 6 months extention

<scribe> ACTION: Kerry will bring it forward to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-ssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Will bring it forward to W3C [on Kerry Taylor - due 2010-02-09].

<laurent_oz> +q

<scribe> ACTION: Kerry will bring the 6 months extention request forward to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-ssn-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Will bring the 6 months extention request forward to W3C [on Kerry Taylor - due 2010-02-09].

<krzysztof_j> bye

<cory> bye

<kerry> -kerry

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Kerry will bring it forward to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-ssn-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Kerry will bring the 6 months extention request forward to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-ssn-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/02 21:10:48 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: kelsey
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <kelsey> ...
Found ScribeNick: kelsey2
Found ScribeNick: kelsey3
Found ScribeNick: Payam
Inferring Scribes: kelsey, kelsey2, kelsey3, Payam
Scribes: kelsey, kelsey2, kelsey3, Payam
ScribeNicks: kelsey, kelsey2, kelsey3, Payam
Default Present: Holger, Payam, AdrianP, Arthur, krzysztof_j, Manfred_DERI, krp, kelsey, michael, kerry, cory, [IPcaller]
Present: Holger Payam AdrianP Arthur krzysztof_j Manfred_DERI krp kelsey michael kerry cory [IPcaller]
Regrets: Luis
Found Date: 02 Feb 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-ssn-minutes.html
People with action items: kerry

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]