<trackbot> Date: 25 May 2010

<laurent_lefort_cs> trackbot, status

<laurent_lefort_cs> scribenick rgarcia

<laurent_lefort_cs> Topic Project point

<laurent_lefort_cs> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Net_Ontology

<kerry> scribenick: rgarcia

Project check point

<kerry> i can hear

<laurent_lefort_cs> Project status: open (and closed) items, listing of OWL products

<dongmei> hi,sorry for late

<kerry> +q

Laurent: We are working in different products related to the ontology: the ontology and its extensions, other related ontology products, examples, and extensions
... any comment?

Kerry: What is the rationale behind this?

Laurent: To provide an overview of what we are doing
... by defining sub-products of the ontology deliverable
... or products external to the group but that are related to it

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Deployments,_Systems_and_Devices

Deployments, Systems and devices

<kerry> i can hear michael

<michael_> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/File:DeploymentandProcess.png

<krp> the third was the time over which the "deployment" is installed

<kerry> +q

<michael_> +q

Michael: Sensor networks are systems attached to a platform
... they are not platforms

<michael_> +q

Kerry: I want to have deployed systems that are composed of other deployed systems

<krp> I think a Deployed System can comprise of several Systems (it's a sublass); each Deployed System can have several Deployments (the events)

<krp> (re-)Deployments

<krp> So I think it covers your case, Kerry

<kerry> I meant to ask -- what is the arrow between deployment and deployed systm?

The hasDeloyment property

<krp> I assumed hasDeployment was offset a little and it was that

<krp> Though I'm not totally clear why DeployedSystem has to exist over System

<krp> Isn't a System that hasDeployment implicitly deployed - does it need to be explicit?

<kerry> Seems to me that it need not be explicit

<michael_> agreed

+q

<kerry> +q

<krp> it would seem less confusing in Kerry's case where a system that's deployed contains another system that in itself has previously been deployed

<krp> so yes, I suspect it need not be explicit

<krp> and would be tidied for redeployed and subsumed systems

<kerry> -q

<kerry> I think we decided to remove

<kerry> the "deployed system" class

<kerry> perhaps krp could speak to that?

<Arthur> Deployment in this draft describes the deployment-time, what about deployment location either absolute or relative?

<michael_> +q

<kerry> sounds right to me

<kerry> and for symmetry -- shouln't there also be an end_deployment location?

<krp> so does System have a location? or is it a property that makes a DeployedSystem explicit?

Michael: DOLCE:process does not have a location, the participants of the process do have a location

Review of the mechanism for the annotation of ontology content

<laurent_lefort_cs> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Terminology_and_Term_Provenance_in_the_Ontology

<krp> Kerry - yes (and kelsey suggested commissioned and decommissioned as clearer terminology for the deployment event)

<scribe> ACTION: Michael to analyse the representation of location for next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-ssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Analyse the representation of location for next meeting [on Michael Compton - due 2010-06-01].

Provenance in the ontology

<kerry> my phone just went dead!

<kerry> please look at the link

<kerry> I will type quickly

<kerry> I propose that we have a very simple approach

<kerry> to capture the "definition" of a "term" in our ontology

<kerry> where "term" means "class", and probably don't bother with properties

<kerry> we use the annotation proprty

<kerry> "rdfs:comment: for the English definition of the intention of the term

<kerry> and we use he annotation propprt dc:source

<kerry> fto indicate (in free text) where we got it from.

<kerry> over.

+q

<kerry> I can't hear discussion ... if there is some perhaps you could summarise for me?

<laurent_lefort_cs> rgarcia: we need to document the properties too

<michael_> +q

<laurent_lefort_cs> laurent (to rgarcia): do you have an example of documented properties?

<laurent_lefort_cs> rgarcia: no but it would be similar using comments and dc:source

yes

Michael: properties are also described in the specifications

AOB

Laurent: Will give a talk about the SSN-XG next Thursday

<kerry> laurent -- i think i should have an action to fix up the wiki page according to waht was decided but i'm not sure what was decided.

<kerry> I'll catch you thursday.

<kerry> no -- friday probably.

<kerry> ok -- monday!

<kerry> bye!

<laurent_lefort_cs> rssagent, generate 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: rgarcia
Inferring Scribes: rgarcia
Default Present: +40.97.8.aaaa, [IPcaller], +1.937.775.aabb, krp, rgarcia, Arthur, laurent_lefort_cs, michael_, [MIT528]
Present: +40.97.8.aaaa [IPcaller] +1.937.775.aabb krp rgarcia Arthur laurent_lefort_cs michael_ [MIT528]
Found Date: 25 May 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-ssn-minutes.html
People with action items: michael