See also: IRC log
<laurent_lefort_cs> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/21-ssn-minutes.html
<krzysztof_j> i can do it
<laurent_lefort_cs> Scribenick: kryzystof_j
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: had anybody a look at Raul's slides
<krzysztof_j> not so far, will look at them asap
<myriam> could you upload the slides as pdf or ppt instead of pptx?
<laurent_lefort_cs> PPt is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Sep/0011.html
<Payam> colour coding is a very good idea
<krzysztof_j> michael: slide 3 and 4 look okay maybe a bit oo much detail
<krzysztof_j> krzysztof_j: yes, especially the Situations part
<cory> sorry ... could you repost the link to presentation?
<krzysztof_j> cory: it is in the last mail from Raul
<krzysztof_j> the file is calles SSN-XG ontology v4.pptx
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: yes maybe to complex and we can leave out some details
<janowicz> michael: our observation
<krzysztof_j> imho it is too complex
<michael> shouldn't get caught trying to show everything on each diagram. The diagrams get too complex if we do that. Better if they are abstractions and then the figures in particular sections show all the details.
<michael> Saying that, I think it's fine to have a diagram that tried to show everything, but it's probably more useful as an 'appendix' rather than as the first thing a reader sees.
<krzysztof_j> Payam: helps to clarify the alignment
<krzysztof_j> Payam: we need a different graphical notation for the alignment, e.g., by color
<krzysztof_j> I would use different color or namespace for the classes but not introduce new signatures for realtions such as subclassing
<Payam> Maybe clarifying that the alignment means "sameAs" or something similar
<myriam> or different shapes
<laurent_lefort_cs> Laurent: Figure 4 - we can add dul: prefix to make it more apparent that the classes are for DUL
<krzysztof_j> krzysztof_j: splitting dul and ssn may be very difficult for the documentation. why not simply highlight some aspects instead of trying to have this huge overview
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: should fig 4 go into the dul module description
<krzysztof_j> michael: too complex as an intro to the ontology
<krzysztof_j> michael: start with simplified views and hide other details in the introduction
<Payam> agree with Michael
<krzysztof_j> michael: we can go into more details if we have to in later parts of the report (e.g., about about alignment details)
<krzysztof_j> ) but it is too much for the intro
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: is a figure/table about the modules missing?
<krzysztof_j> myriam: dolce can really help us to integrate other ontologies
<krzysztof_j> myriam: dolce parts are also helpful in the diagramm to get the idea and the underlying assumptions
<krzysztof_j> http://www.personal.psu.edu/kuj13/SSO 2010.pdf
<krzysztof_j> sorry, there is a space between SSO and 2010 this is part of the url
<krzysztof_j> (and it also contains the last version of the ontology and the dolce alignment)
<krzysztof_j> (the last version of the alignment and sensor design pattern is available at http://www.personal.psu.edu/kuj13/OuM/OuM.owl)
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: michael+krzysztof what is your plan for the alignment? a less complex version of the paper
<michael> we are meeting after this to discuss
<krzysztof_j> we will know in two days whether the paper will be accepted or not but we can use it for the report anyway
<michael> no laurent?
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: any other updates on the documentation and the modules
<krzysztof_j> Andriy: some rework needed e.g., the observations. can we reuse the example in the documentation page?
<krzysztof_j> kryzystof_j: mix between the procedure that defines the observation and the procedure that defines how the sensor is constructed
<krzysztof_j> (see e.g., page 8 of the SSO 2010 paper for details and examples)
<krzysztof_j> laurent, this was not a criticism but just a pointer that we all should have a look at the modules and documentation to make sure it is consistent
<krzysztof_j> with the ontology
<krzysztof_j> I agree, again it was not a criticism
<laurent_lefort_cs> End to End examples: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Agriculture_Meteorology_Sensor_Network
<laurent_lefort_cs> Type definition http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/images/8/87/Aws.xml
<laurent_lefort_cs> Instances http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/images/c/cf/Ssn-phenonet.xml
<krzysztof_j> laurent can you argue where you see the problem?
<michael> There are many things for which reasoners (with Abox) don't exactly locate the errors - it's a hard problem. I don't think that we should restrict our modelling because of weaknesses in error reporting in tools. If we did there are probably lots of things we would have to change.
<krzysztof_j> ack to michael
<krzysztof_j> cory: ack to krzysztof_j
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: we just need to make sure that it is consistent (and not just a QCR somewhere while it is avoided in all other parts)
<krzysztof_j> (hmmm, laurent is right)
<krzysztof_j> cory: the problem is to make a uniform ontology (make sure that there is no part that is way more complex than other parts)
<laurent_lefort_cs> vote: go (let the ontology as it is - and document the restrictions) - postpone (delay the resolution for the after the XG) - no go (removing the restrictions)
<laurent_lefort_cs> no go
<laurent_lefort_cs> Raul email: postpone
<krzysztof_j> postpone or go (imo DUL also uses QCR)
<myriam> maybe postpone
<krzysztof_j> ok then ig go gor GO
<krzysztof_j> i go for go
<michael> I'm happy to document
<krzysztof_j> vote: go
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: we need a documentation
<krzysztof_j> DUL uses closures and hence in most cases they do not require QCR
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: all please check whether we really need QCR
<krzysztof_j> laurent_lefort_cs: cory can you help with the pro/con QCR decision?
<krzysztof_j> cory: yes
<janowicz_> (i cannot join anymore the w3c system does not let me in)
<Payam> Myriam: follow up will focus on continuing the current work or will/can also focus on applications of ontology?
<myriam> ok thank you ;)
<krzysztof_j> (the w3c telco system does not let me join again - probably because of the time. just FYI: we had the linked spatiotemporal data workshop last week at GIScience 2010 and some people have been interested in doing a VoCamp at ISWC 2010 on linked sensor data, citizens as sensors, and an even smaller version of ontology pattern based on our work and dolce. anybody interested to join? let me know)
<cory> sorry Laurent, phone died
<laurent_lefort_cs> Conference is finished Thanks everyone
<cory> Laurent ... I'll send you something soon
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) Succeeded: s/alignment details/alignment details)/ Succeeded: s/udnerlying/underlying/ Succeeded: s/after this ti discuss/after this to discuss/ Succeeded: s/reusue/reuse/ Found ScribeNick: kryzystof_j WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <kryzystof_j> ... Inferring Scribes: kryzystof_j WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 233 total lines.) Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick? Default Present: Payam, Andriy, michael, laurent_lefort_cs, myriam, krzysztof_j, +1.937.775.aaaa, janowicz Present: Payam Andriy michael laurent_lefort_cs myriam krzysztof_j +1.937.775.aaaa janowicz Regrets: Oscar Raul Danh Kevin Kerry Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Sep/0014.html Got date from IRC log name: 22 Sep 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-ssn-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]