SSN XG -- 14 Sep 2010

<laurent_csiro> Previous: 2010-09-08 http://www.w3.org/2010/09/08-ssn-minutes.html

<vhuang> hi

<laurent_csiro> zakin, [IPCaller] is me

<vhuang> zadim, ??P11 is me

<laurent_csiro> ScribeNick: Payam

Laurent: 1st topic: status of report- starting with ontology deliverable

Section 4 Ontology Deliverable

Laurent discusses Andriy's work

<laurent_csiro> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Work_on_the_SSN_ontology

<laurent_csiro> Andriy's progress on Sensor module doc: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Sensor

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Deploy

<laurent_csiro> Payam: Deploy module http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Deploy

there is a new version of the ontology with recent changes with alignments

Laurent has created a revision of the Raul's slides

we have some description for deployment (Payam's example) and measurement (Andriy's example) capabilities

we need description for Observation

<laurent_csiro> File changes: ontology and graphics http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Special:ListFiles

Observation?

it is in progress...

<myriam> it's just that maybe observation should be more linked to a better environment description

<myriam> and sensor role

<laurent_csiro> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Work_on_the_SSN_ontology#Modules_and_Mapping_to_use_cases

the above figure demonstrate the priorities in the current work

s/demonstrate demonstrates

Myriam has worked on DOLCE and some of the examples can be shared

<cory> +q amit

Amit suggests inclusion of provenance and linked-data on sensor web

and providing some example on linked-data

Amit's 2nd suggestion is inclusion of perception and what leads to semantics

Amit: how we use sensor observation to detect an event in real world - providing links to perception
... adding some descriptions as a part of report or as an appendix to the report: sensor- observation and sensing and observation to perception

Laurent: it is good to have an example on these issues; however we need to wrap up the report

<kerry> see the section "Current and planned use of the ontology - XG members " in the conclusion. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Conclusion_and_Recommendations#Current_and_planned_use_of_the_ontology_-_XG_members

Laurent: we can consider some of these issues as follow ups to the current ontology... ?

Amit: the example with show how the ontology can co-exisit with other ontolgies and as a part of an eco-system

s/with will

Conclusion and Recommendations

<kerry> (breaking in) This is a good place (see conclusion ref above) for a description of the kind of thing you re doing with the ssn-xg ontology with as little details as you like.

<laurent_csiro> Section 7: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Conclusion_and_Recommendations

I agree with Kerry - Amit's example can be added to this section

Laurent: DERI is interested in using sensor annotation in semantic reality

s/semantic reality /augmented reality

it is "Augmented reality"

Laurent: calling for suggestion on usage of the ontology in the projects

<cory> +q

<AlexPassant> we can add a SPITFIRE use-case (new EU project involving DERI)

Payam: Uni Surrey in IoTA - Internet of Things Architecture - SSN-XG ontology is a "Standardisation opportunity"

<krp> yes, I think we're fine with the two semsorgrid examples you've put us down for

Internet of things Architecture

<ocorcho> +q

<kerry> +q

<kerry> laurent -- luis is ogc now -- perhaps we could ask him to do that in hte conclusion? there is also MMI, but we have no active contact there anymore, I think. Perhaps wipe?

Laurent will present the group's work in the OGC meeting in December

<kerry> +q

Laurent discusses Report Conclusion and Recommendations

<kerry> sany is mentioned in the conclusions

<kerry> as a possilbe user of the ssn-xg

<kerry> i think they are too finished

<kerry> but I can check on Monday next week when Denzer visits

<AlexPassant> regarding "7.3.6 Social and Sensor Web" the report could link to the Social Web XG report (due in a few weeks) as it includes lots of SW

Laurent: who will be interested in continuing the work

yes

is there any limitation to invited members in W3C?

<kerry> +q

<kerry> I can't hear well enough --did you say "SERC" as an alternative?

<kerry> what's that/

Laurent: discusses limitations of continuing the work as a W3C group

<laurent_csiro> The example cited by Laurent is SIOC

<AlexPassant> http://sioc-project.org

<kerry> I do not think the limitation of invited experts matters.

<AlexPassant> Process for invited experts : http://www.w3.org/2004/08/invexp.html

Laurent, Alex: another possibility is SIOC

<kerry> I +q

<kerry> +q

<kerry> CSIRO won't commit at this level after we finish here

<kerry> i am sure.

<kerry> But W3C will remain

<kerry> the best option for us.

<kerry> I think.

<kerry> oo

<kerry> CSIRO has a number of ongoing

<kerry> projects that will use it.

<kerry> we have a lot of interest in keeping it going.

<kerry> But I don't think we can resource this level into the future

<AlexPassant> we would commit to an upcoming WG

<cory> knoesis would like to continue

<vhuang> Ericsson is also interested.

we are also interested- but I am invited member

<ocorcho> UPM will do as well, at least until Aug2011

<AlexPassant> I was thinking more on the SemWeb side

<AlexPassant> what will be the status of the ontology after the XG ? Does it makes sense to have a WG to standardise it ?

<kerry> +q

<kerry> I suspect so -- a wg looks possible.

<kerry> I am thinking a w3c group to develop a submission

<kerry> or maybe like the lifesciences interest group?

<AlexPassant> I guess it depends on the level of commitmeent we want to have

<AlexPassant> IG cannot produce RECs

<AlexPassant> but are good for gatherings, publishing notes, etc.

<kerry> member submission is ok, but a wg submission would have more status

Laurent: W3C has interest groups, and also small groups- interest groups cannot produce recommendations; the question is which category our activity fits into

<AlexPassant> IG *cannot* produce RECs actually

<ocorcho> my phone died, will follow the chat conversation

<kerry> (looking for Amit)

<kerry> +q

Laurent: is this a topic for a W3C working group?

<kerry> I'm not sure that a particular ontology would normally be interesting enough for a WG -- but in our case we are at the pointy end of web-of-data & internet of things

<kerry> that might carry some weight

<kerry> oo

Amit: typically ontology itself is not a WG

<AlexPassant> I've discussed with Ivan Herman re. ontology and WG - W3C never done that but could do, nothing prevents it

SA-REST

<cory> http://www.w3.org/Submission/SA-REST/

Amit, sensor could be one of the resources...

Amit, there is also work on best practices; such as semantic sensor applications best practices guideline

he left I think

Amit, there maybe an interest in developing guidelines and open source tools..?

Amit, doesn't see any specific requirement for a description language

Laurent: is interested in semantic markup and suggests some of the work in this area could be useful
... internet-of-things and moving from sensors to other type of applications can be also another topic of interest

Uni of Surrey is interested in IoT and Web of Data

Amit, we can look at how to develop comprehensive applications - taking physical observations to perception... creating a life-cycle from sensing from multiple sources... to applications

<vhuang> Ericsson is interested in creating new information from available data and ontology.

<laurent_csiro> Laurent: the type of higher level apps Amit talks about is partially covered by the decision XG http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/decision/

<Arthur> I also would be interested to work on semantics of networked devices and their capabilites: sensors, actuators, communication, computing, storage, etc.

<cory> knoesis is working on the application of sensor data for perception, provenance, streaming data, and trust

Laurent: calling for connecting the ideas to ongoing work in W3C, and the work in OGC...

<vhuang> We are also working on security and privacy issues.

thanks, bye!

<kerry> bye!

<vhuang> bye

<myriam> we are interested in whether and how sensor data can become interesting for common users

<myriam> and then mobile applications would be a great way to make sensor data more pervasive

<myriam> and proper semantic descriptions can help in detecting when to provide such data to users

<laurent_csiro> Section 6: Mapping deliverable

<laurent_csiro> Botts: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Work_on_mappings

<laurent_csiro> Section 3: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Motivating_Use_cases

<laurent_csiro> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/File:UseCasesAndOntologyModules.png

<laurent_csiro> QU ontology http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Agriculture_Meteorology_Sensor_Network

<laurent_csiro> s/demonstrate demonstrates//

<laurent_csiro> s/mmeber/member/

<laurent_csiro> s/lifescience s/lifesciences/

- DRAFT -

SSN XG

14 Sep 2010

Attendees

Contents

Section 4 Ontology Deliverable

Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output