20:49:12 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 20:49:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-irc 20:49:14 RRSAgent, make logs world 20:49:14 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 20:49:16 Zakim, this will be SDW 20:49:16 ok, trackbot 20:49:17 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 20:49:17 Date: 03 May 2016 20:49:28 trackbot, make logs public 20:49:28 Sorry, Kerry, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs public'. Please refer to for help. 20:49:43 rrsagent, make logs public 20:49:57 zakim, code? 20:49:57 I have been told this is SDW 20:52:35 SefkiKolozali_UniS has joined #sdwssn 20:53:50 present+ Kerry 20:54:06 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 20:54:34 chair: kerry 20:54:46 +present 20:57:41 Kerry has changed the topic to: webex code is 643 407 318 I hope 20:57:57 and password? 20:58:20 ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn 20:58:32 phila has joined #sdwssn 20:59:11 KJanowicz has joined #sdwssn 20:59:28 Kerry has changed the topic to: webex code is 647 066 501 pwd sdwssn 21:00:27 JRamsay has joined #sdwssn 21:00:33 Payam has joined #sdwssn 21:01:25 present+ KJanowicz 21:01:34 present+ Payam 21:01:37 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn 21:01:41 what is webx room id? 21:02:17 found it 21:02:45 present+ JRamsay 21:02:50 present+ KJanowicz 21:02:51 thanks phila 21:03:02 present+ ClausStadler 21:03:07 joshlieberman has joined #sdwssn 21:03:11 zakim, code? 21:03:11 I have been told this is SDW 21:03:14 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 21:03:19 zakim code? 21:03:28 +present RaulGarciaCastro 21:03:31 present+ SefkiKolozali_UniS 21:03:37 present+ ahaller2 21:04:02 present+ DanhLePhuoc 21:04:07 zakim, this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m358ba130b41247b188253f7775b937cc Meeting id 647 066 501 pw dswssn Phone +1-617-324-0000 21:04:07 got it, phila 21:04:15 zakim, save this description 21:04:15 this conference description has been saved, phila 21:04:38 Kerry has changed the topic to: webex code is 647066501 21:04:57 phila has changed the topic to: webex code is 647066501 https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m358ba130b41247b188253f7775b937cc 21:05:35 sure 21:05:58 scribe: claus 21:06:04 scribenick: claus 21:06:20 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20160503 21:06:38 proposed: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/04/19-sdwssn-minutes 21:06:48 + 21:06:55 1+ 21:06:56 +1 21:06:56 +1 21:07:07 +1 21:07:07 +1 21:07:14 +1 21:07:16 sorry 21:07:20 +1 21:07:21 +1 21:07:40 0 wasn't there 21:08:21 SimonCox has joined #sdwssn 21:08:31 RESOLUTION: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/04/19-sdwssn-minutes 21:08:33 +present SimonCox 21:08:39 present+ phila 21:08:45 Kerry_ has joined #sdwssn 21:08:47 present+ SimonCox 21:08:52 Webex having a spat with Safari. On finally. 21:08:56 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:08:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html phila 21:09:12 patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 21:09:39 RRSAgent, make logs public 21:09:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:09:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html phila 21:09:53 Can't get onto webex :( 21:09:54 topic: "Sensor" related to DUL: followup 21:10:29 zakim code? 21:10:39 Follow up from last week's discussion to move sensor from PhysicalObject to Object 21:10:53 Webber Safari. Try Chrome? 21:11:02 s/week/SSN meeting 21:11:30 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks 21:12:25 +q 21:12:39 +q 21:13:03 Can a sensor be a person? 21:13:17 IMHO, yes (and it should) 21:13:38 q? 21:13:40 I should hope so. 21:13:43 ack payam 21:14:32 Perhaps sensing is a role, not an essence? 21:15:17 Or is a person a platform for multiple sensors? 21:15:24 everyting that takes measures and produces and outcome should be allowed to be a sensor 21:16:02 @josh depends on how much you want to decompose it 21:16:07 btw, this also means that there has to be a stimulus 21:16:14 payam: pratically people won't look into these kind of terminological details - they have a device that can measure things and want to model their setting - so suggestion to focus on more into practical issues 21:16:23 q? 21:16:30 ack KJanowicz 21:16:31 I might challenge a visual observation by a blind person, but that's just me. 21:17:03 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 21:17:05 +1 to @KJanowicz 21:17:40 +q 21:18:36 THe other problem with DUL alignment is Observation =/= Event 21:18:44 KJanowicz: as SSN-DUL alignment won't be part in the FPWD and people are unlikely to query for "give me all objects" its not a major issue 21:19:07 q? 21:19:14 ack kk 21:19:18 ack KJanowicz 21:19:27 We can defer this discussion until we have revisited the rest of the ontology 21:19:46 Kerry_: There will be a note published which intends to show how to use SSN with DUL, so the alignment is an issue, although not a major one 21:20:29 q? 21:20:49 ... and maybe also look at alignment with other upper ontologies (e.g. BFO) at the same time as DUL 21:20:51 +q 21:21:17 KJanowicz: We should focus on the core observation and sensor model which should become as useful as schema.org and only once that has been established see how DUL alignment can be performed 21:21:20 IMHO, we need a core part of SSN,e.g., a pattern that is as trivial as schema.org and then add more complex modules on top of it for more complicated applications 21:21:40 +q 21:22:03 ack danh 21:23:30 q+ 21:23:39 ack KJanowicz 21:23:51 http://semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj1237.pdf 21:23:55 DanhLePhuoc: Agrees with KJanowicz - the first class citizens are observation, measurement and some metadata and they should be worked out first 21:24:45 ack ahaller2 21:25:24 KJanowicz: If there was small robust model published it will likely have millions of users right away. From there the model(s) can be extended. 21:25:51 ahaller2: yes but lets not forget that SSN-XG was the result of an incubator group that was tasked to test out the waters. we should be allowed to include lessons learned 21:27:18 Process issue: yes, it is good to resolve things, and to clearly record the resolution. But that does not mean things can't be re-opened if the group agrees. 21:27:30 proposed: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant 21:28:17 q? 21:28:26 ack ahaller 21:28:41 +1 21:28:50 +1 21:28:59 ahaller2: Agrees that devising a simple set of core modules with light weight semantics (RDFS) is a good idea. Also, we should start from what is already on the web protege and remove items rather than starting over from scratch. 21:29:00 +1 21:29:01 q? 21:29:46 q+ 21:29:53 q+ 21:30:14 using foundational ontologies is really not cathcing up on the SW. Most people moved on to patterns and other approaches and this is for good reasons 21:30:50 I reason is that it is not maintained any longer 21:30:56 IoT actually needs a strong device model to deal with bewildering variety of sensors and platforms. 21:31:01 s/I/1 21:31:47 +q 21:32:09 q+ 21:32:11 I don't think we need a redesign 21:32:33 what we need it to make SSN more lightweight, more modular and add O&M 21:32:40 SefkiKolozali_UniS: As ontology engineers, in our work, we have to comply to certain criteria when publishing datasets, such as include links to certain foundation ontologies. Therefore, changing alignments requires update of established processes in the publishing workflows. Hence, there need to be strong arguments to remove ontologies and potential replacements need to be clarified. 21:32:40 +1 21:32:41 s/it/is 21:32:49 Agree with Payam 21:33:03 q+ 21:33:08 Kerry_ can you repeat your porposal 21:33:12 +1 21:33:17 ack Payam 21:33:25 proposed: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant 21:33:30 +1 21:33:33 q? 21:33:35 +1 21:33:35 agree with Payam, I think we all agree on what to do, it is more a question around process 21:33:36 +1 21:33:40 +1 21:33:43 +1 21:33:44 +1 21:33:54 I would like to speak on that 21:33:59 +1 21:34:06 resolved: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant 21:34:24 +1 21:34:30 q? 21:35:26 q- 21:35:36 kerry has joined #sdwssn 21:35:36 ak kj 21:35:39 ack kj 21:35:40 ack joshlieberman 21:35:53 s/ak kj// 21:35:54 the reference to DUL at http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DUL.owl does not exist anymore. 21:36:27 agree with your plan Kerry_ 21:36:47 This one still works: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl 21:36:47 +q 21:37:22 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ 21:37:33 q? 21:37:45 ack danh 21:37:50 @KJanowicz disconnect between ontologies and linked data ;-) 21:37:54 kerry The work on FPWD should stay close to what it is now 21:39:26 q? 21:39:32 DanhLePhuoc and Kerry: Proposal for modularization already exists, we should not start over from scratch 21:40:42 ack Payam 21:40:45 q? 21:40:57 I am afraid that if we only do minimal changes for now with the hope to change them leater, we will not change them at all 21:41:14 sorry :-) 21:41:18 Payam: The meeting is run too democratically: Issues should be more prioritized such that important things get tackled before having to wrap up everything in the last two weeks :) 21:41:56 +q 21:42:08 kerry when do you plan to publish it? 21:42:37 When it is in a condition which shows a coherent picture of what we expect to see going forward. 21:43:09 Payam_ has joined #sdwssn 21:43:28 q+ to ask about http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ 21:44:08 q? 21:44:25 -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ FPWD? 21:44:26 KJanowicz: We are trying to standardize something for the next 10 years to come. Therefore we should be allowed to perform major changes and it should take the time needed, such as 2 months. (I hope I got that right) 21:45:08 +q 21:45:16 q- 21:45:24 ack ph 21:45:24 phila, you wanted to ask about http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ 21:46:34 q? 21:46:50 ack p 21:47:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:47:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html phila 21:48:24 present+ joshlieberman, RaulGarciaCastro 21:49:10 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:49:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html phila 21:49:21 q? 21:49:36 There is another proposal on the table, mentioned by @KJanowicz above 21:49:43 +q 21:50:33 ack KJanowicz 21:50:34 payam: What are the priorities for getting FPWD done? 21:50:38 regrets+ Scott 21:51:22 +q 21:51:56 q? 21:52:18 kerry: It has been discussed over - 1. dul alignment 2. modularization 3. get open issues and documentation + introduction into the draft 21:52:27 ack KJanowicz 21:53:53 KJanowicz: Emphasizes that payam's comments on slow progress due to too much talking are a bit harsh 21:55:47 q? 21:55:53 It is incorrect to suggest there are no other things on the table. 21:56:12 I understand your point kerry and I fully appreciate your work on pushing us towards a first draft. 21:56:16 kerry: The document suggests how modularization gets implemented - its in the proposal already. What goes into SSN and what not will not be resolved within the next two months, therefore the issues need to be documented - in a nutshell, we can have mechanisms for modulariations but not content. 21:56:24 q? 21:56:48 s/modulariations /modularizations 21:56:54 q+ 21:57:03 ack next 21:58:19 DanhLePhuoc: What's the ETA on the FPWD? 21:58:48 (awkward process thing - publications need to be agreed by whole WG, not just sub group). 21:59:30 q+ to talk about time lines 21:59:54 kerry: plans were: 3 month ago it was end of april, but now estimate not clear yet - proposals? 22:01:13 kerry: within a month it could be feasible, unresolved proposals could go into the document as questions 22:01:24 Agree that there is no consensus on alternative proposals, but some *are* fully worked out. 22:01:57 [Time draft is incomplete, but can be viewed here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ ] 22:02:41 q? 22:02:41 Payam has joined #sdwssn 22:02:53 phila: in order to get extension approved by W3C for dec 2016, formal ground work needs to be done by june 22:02:53 ack phila 22:02:53 phila, you wanted to talk about time lines 22:02:53 ack phila 22:03:00 q+ 22:03:15 Alternatives to be considered: http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/sam-lite 22:03:22 ack danh 22:03:41 +q 22:03:43 +1 to publish first draft with ontology documented as now and then work on agreement on further modules 22:04:12 DanhLePhuoc: will it be feasible to add measurement and observation to the FPWD? 22:04:25 kerry: I first need to understand the proposal better - please elaborate 22:04:40 SimonCox: This is what I tried to push; see above. 22:04:50 ack Payam 22:04:51 q? 22:05:12 q+ 22:05:13 SimonCox , I think this can be a good starting point 22:06:20 +q 22:06:38 +q 22:07:02 ack ahaller2 22:07:28 ++++1 22:07:46 DanhLePhuoc: Explained current work alignment of observations and measurements 22:07:53 s/work/work on 22:08:12 ack SefkiKolozali_UniS 22:08:18 Note that om-lite does *not* provide a model for sensors - just a stub class. This where the SSO pattern could be introduced? 22:08:27 ack ahaller2 22:08:37 ack ahaller 22:08:52 My proposal was to have a common core module for observations and sensors in a schema.org style and then add more complex modules for other parts and for more involved axioms on top of it. I also proposed to use om-lite for the observation part (it does not speak about sensors). 22:09:32 I understand if this is not feasible and do not want to add to the pain. 22:09:40 q 22:09:40 ack KJanowicz 22:09:41 q- 22:09:53 SefkiKolozali_UniS: Also has input on the observation and measurement topic and offers to contribute 22:10:06 This also of interest: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089606 22:10:55 bye 22:10:56 Thanks, bye bye 22:10:57 joshlieberman has left #sdwssn 22:10:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:10:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html kerry 22:11:01 thanks, bye 22:11:03 Bye 22:11:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:11:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwssn-minutes.html phila 22:16:59 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 22:37:25 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn