20:55:14 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 20:55:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/31-sdwssn-irc 20:55:16 RRSAgent, make logs world 20:55:16 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 20:55:18 Zakim, this will be SDW 20:55:18 ok, trackbot 20:55:19 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 20:55:19 Date: 31 May 2016 20:57:57 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn 20:58:13 SimonCox has joined #sdwssn 20:58:16 KJanowic has joined #sdwssn 20:58:18 regrets+ raul 20:58:25 regrets+ sefki 20:59:17 present+ DanhLePhuoc 20:59:25 present+ SimonCox 20:59:36 Webex password problem 20:59:50 present+ ahaller2 20:59:59 present+ KJanowic 20:59:59 regrets+ scott 21:00:14 ByronCinNZ has joined #SDWSSN 21:00:21 Is the password the one at the top of this screen - doesn't work for me 21:01:57 present+ ByronCinNC 21:01:59 roba has joined #sdwssn 21:02:01 mak logs public 21:02:10 robin has joined #sdwssn 21:02:15 rrsagent, make logs public 21:02:21 present+ ByronCinNZ 21:02:27 present+ robin 21:03:07 look at this! https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-ssn-20160531/ 21:03:12 ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn 21:04:26 same size as W3C in Chrome 21:04:29 present+ roba 21:04:32 present+ kerry 21:04:43 chair: kerry 21:05:14 present+ ClausStadler 21:05:54 scribe: Armin 21:06:06 scribenick: ahaller2 21:07:06 topic: last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-sdwssn-minutes 21:07:18 +1 21:07:23 +1 21:07:27 +1 21:07:27 +1 21:07:28 +1 21:07:30 +1 21:07:32 resolution: approve last weeks minutes 21:07:51 +1 21:08:02 patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 21:08:07 +1 21:08:09 +1 21:08:35 joshli has joined #sdwssn 21:08:49 congrats! 21:08:58 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 21:09:03 JRamsay has joined #sdwssn 21:09:31 http://www.w3.org/2016/05/31-sdwssn-irc 21:10:14 topic: Armin's Action-173 and Action-174 21:10:39 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/armins-branch/ssn/images/modular_ontology.png 21:10:59 present+ JRamsay 21:11:09 ahaller2: postsl link and mentiones actions commited to his branch 21:11:27 some examples around graph and new version of graph (diagram) 21:11:52 ahaller2: was thinking the core should be our sensor core in rdfs semantics like schema.org 21:12:02 ...maybe some informal local restrictions 21:12:20 ...Kerry and I spoke yesterday -- not sure what goes in core yet 21:12:32 See here for a proposal: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules 21:12:35 ... needs to be sensor, measurement calues, device class 21:12:48 ...then 2 outer core modules that introduces rich semantics from ssn 21:12:59 ...and imports sensing and sensing device 21:13:07 ..o&m modu,e woiuld import core 21:13:31 ..those 2 modules are independent. If they use a concept from the other module it will use the namespace of the other but does not import 21:13:46 ...in order to align we have this alignment thin layer on top 21:14:00 ... which would import both ssn and oml module 21:14:05 Does the O&M module include sampling? 21:14:28 ... no longer relies on dolce but this is on lhhs and imports ssn but not oml 21:14:52 ...core might have some annotation properties to point to other modules where they are defined 21:15:03 ... reusing terms 21:15:09 ...questions? 21:15:12 q+ 21:15:21 ack KJanowic 21:15:47 KJanowic: where would sensing a feature go? 21:15:53 q+ 21:16:07 ahaller2: i beleive in oml part but other people will think otherwise 21:16:25 KJanowic: i think we can tick this in -- email discussion coming 21:16:38 ... now old www work and core and oml 21:16:59 ... could we instead have an observation module and a sensor module instead/ 21:17:10 I think Jano was asking about 'SamplingFeatures' which is part of O&M and om-lite 21:17:17 ahaller2: wanted to show ssn has all the rich semantics plus deployment etc 21:17:32 KJanowic: but should not show who invented it but theme based 21:17:39 q+ 21:17:48 ack roba 21:17:48 +1 for the naming, we need to change them! 21:18:04 @SimonCox: Yes, SamplingFeature will go into the observation module. 21:18:15 roba: a couple of thinks relating to KJanowic 21:18:24 ...regarding horizontal and vertical... 21:18:35 ,,,does this show both aspects combined? 21:18:42 WOuld be helpful to see SamplingFeatures explicitly in the diagram ... 21:18:55 roba: core menas citable concepts ned to be defined 21:19:09 ..need to clarify the role of each of thinks a bit better 21:19:11 Personally, I would have favoured a core, a sensor, an observation, and a deployment module and it is this deployment module where platforms, sampling, networks and so would go in. 21:19:35 ahaller2: good point .. the owl:import indicates vertical, others are horizontal but not well shown here 21:19:48 ...there are als osme examples to explain this in my doc 21:20:02 ... om is not the canonical 21:20:08 ...is this a naming clarification. 21:20:15 ...where would imports appear? 21:20:31 ...important that alignment modules are importing the 2 independent 21:20:46 Agreed on the horizontal vs vertical layering issue. I have some examples with axioms here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules . I think these details will evolve when we work on the modules. this first draft from ahaller2 and kerry looks really good to me. 21:20:49 Sampling features are closely linked to sensor deployment semantics - but can probably be decoupled from Observation module 21:20:53 ahaller2: dolce is only on outer layer of ssn, does not realte to o&m 21:21:05 ...simon's proposla is layered under prov 21:21:11 q+ 21:21:13 q? 21:21:22 I still think DUL should be entirely removed from any official language in the standard. 21:21:22 q+ 21:21:41 roba: shouldn't dulce alignment import dulce 21:21:54 ... want some satellites around the outside 21:22:16 ahaller2: yes could show imports of external ontologies 21:22:18 q? 21:22:22 ack DanhLePhuoc 21:22:35 DanhLePhuoc: coment on wiki page of ssn core module 21:22:42 ...talking about rdfs 21:22:55 worried about rdfs interpretation 21:23:22 ...if only using rdfs how doe we know whther to use rdfs reasoner 21:23:43 IMHO, Core should be as simple as schema.org. No OWL, no global domains and ranges. 21:23:52 ahaller2: was a bbit sloppy here ... prbably want rdfs 1.1 ... doo we want owl:class 21:24:09 +1 to ahaller2 21:24:12 ...there just should be no rich semantics there, can use it as it is 21:24:13 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#rdfs-interpretations 21:24:42 DanhLePhuoc: for me ehen you talk about rdfs i think rdfs interpretation 21:24:56 ...eg for a sparql enpoint with sparql entailment 21:25:09 e.g assuming implicit triples 21:25:19 q? 21:25:26 ack kerry 21:25:40 https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ 21:26:00 q+ 21:26:04 kerry: not much reasoning in the core, class hierarchy 21:26:15 ... would be nice if the OWL class 21:26:26 s/the/they are 21:26:31 s/class/classes 21:27:03 ... you could rdfs entailment, but you would be in the owl/rdfs intersection 21:27:09 s/could/could us 21:27:20 s/could us/could use 21:27:49 I do not see the problem, what am I missing? 21:27:55 danh: see rdfs semantics 101, you can see the more oppressive one covers the less opressive one so you can do rdfs and it will work with owl 21:28:00 DanhLePhuoc: you define stuff in rdfs and OWL 21:28:15 ...if you have less powerful qurey processor you can do rdfs 21:28:35 ...on server you can do owl 2 but rdfs on gateway which still does some job for you 21:28:52 ...can then put data in server to get owl2 semantics 21:29:17 s/oppressive/expressive 21:29:26 ...the good part we can put in best practice too -- when you can use what kind of reasoning 21:29:37 s/opressive/expressive 21:29:44 ...WoT talks about only the xsd datatypes for interpretation 21:29:57 ...eg.g 5 is that same as 5.0 21:30:07 ..can still work for that 21:30:14 q? 21:30:16 s/eg/g 5/e.g. 5 21:30:18 ack SimonCox 21:30:43 SimonCox: suggestion that diagram misses undelying alignment with OGC model 21:31:01 ...something in the core that realtes to features e.g .sampling features 21:31:01 featureOfInterest would be in core 21:31:16 ...about assignment of properties to features 21:31:23 ...sampling features doen this. 21:31:25 q+ 21:31:32 s/doen/does 21:31:46 ...that side of observation model was not addressed in original ssn ans reamins invisible here 21:32:02 ... needed for linking over to best practices 21:32:27 ...want to suggest to look how midlle of diagram has asplit in 2 21:32:34 Pushing to BP is good - but is Spatial data BP best place? Or only place in short term? 21:32:36 q? 21:32:41 ack KJanowic 21:32:55 KJanowic: suggest we do not goo too far into what goes where 21:33:10 but are close to vertical and horixontal layering.. 21:33:15 suggest vote on this 21:33:16 q+ 21:33:21 q? 21:33:23 +1 on voting 21:33:26 +1 21:33:28 ack joshli 21:33:28 +1 21:33:34 s/horixontal/horizontal 21:34:07 joshli: wants to see moreon how expressiveness works.. can see central core and adding outside 21:34:07 My suggestion: the details will be worked out when we do the actual axioms. It looks like we finally all agree on the vertical and horizonal layering so maybe vote on this and move on? 21:34:10 Also assignment feature properties is perhaps an entailment regime? 21:34:12 q+ 21:34:20 joshli: see example in the wiki 21:34:21 ... want to see how the vertical works but wants to see how 21:34:49 ...one other issue it puzzles me which is how ssn ontology does not cover netwrok realtionships 21:35:02 :observation \circ :featureOfInterest \sqsubseteq :observed // Assuming we have guarded domain and range restrictions in place. 21:35:06 e.g betewrrn platforms and sampling features and features of interest 21:35:24 q? 21:36:02 kerry: ack KJanowic 21:36:33 ... see wiki link with propertychain example 21:36:43 link? 21:36:45 ... and agree about missing netowrk part 21:37:00 q? 21:37:07 ack KJanowic 21:37:14 q+ 21:37:34 +1 21:37:36 What is the motion? 21:38:02 the motion is to agree on the idea of vertical and horizontal layering (not yet on any details or count of modules) 21:38:45 +1 21:38:45 +1 21:38:49 +1 21:38:50 +1 21:38:50 +1 21:38:51 +1 21:38:55 +1 21:38:55 +1 21:38:56 +1 21:38:58 jay! 21:39:02 yes 21:39:08 q- 21:39:14 q- 21:39:26 My understanding is that the horizontal modular relationships add new types of concepts, vertical m-relationships add more expressive predicates. 21:39:29 +1 21:39:30 IMHO, this is a very good first diagram that you did there and we can discuss and revisit the details as we go along 21:39:38 resolved: agree on the idea of vertical and horizontal layering (not yet on any details or count of modules) 21:39:44 @joshli: yes 21:40:43 If Simon is willing to give me a hand, I would hammer out a first draft of CORE and how to add the sampling feature hook to that 21:40:44 topic: Correcting typos in SSN annotations Issue-60 21:41:02 kerry: we may need to include better explanations of the layering, referring to KJanowic wiki and the discussion we had in the meeting today 21:41:27 kerry: bug with LODE that causes a lot of typos 21:41:35 @KJanowic must wait until July :-( 21:42:47 q? 21:42:48 kerry: happy to do it myself and freeze the document 21:43:10 NP, I can rework what is in the wikiand wait for your input. 21:43:21 SimonCox: the ontology is still unstable, you may do a lot of extra work 21:43:45 kerry: annotations will not change too much, as we probably won't take away much classes/properties 21:44:16 kerry: annotations will appear mostly in rdfs:comment 21:44:33 q? 21:44:59 kerry: it is around foreign characters etc. that screwed up the first public draft 21:45:34 kerry: not changing meaning, just fixing typos and characters that cause problems with LODE 21:45:41 +1 21:45:42 om-lite is heavily annotated! 21:45:45 +1 21:45:49 +1 21:45:52 +1 21:45:52 +1 21:45:59 +1 21:45:59 +1 21:46:01 +1 21:46:40 @ahaller2: can you upload an svg version of https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/armins-branch/ssn/images/modular_ontology.png so that it can be edited? 21:46:48 q? 21:47:24 yes, KJanowic I can upload an svg version 21:47:28 thx 21:47:30 topic: Next task focus (suggest modularisation section 3). 21:48:03 kerry: what are our next steps? 21:48:17 q+ 21:48:24 kerry: we could start working on what goes where 21:49:49 q? 21:49:51 kerry: proposals for what goes where and even naming 21:49:53 ack KJanowic 21:50:49 agree that they should go in there, personally not in the core 21:50:55 q+ 21:51:20 actuators are also important 21:51:29 q? 21:51:32 ack SimonCox 21:51:37 not in the core but it should go somewhere and there is an existing axiomatization out there so it should be easy to do 21:52:27 +1, I get this question many times. We had to do our own version in the GeoLink project 21:53:05 q? 21:53:14 q? 21:53:14 q+ 21:53:20 q+ 21:53:42 q? 21:54:22 ack ahaller2 21:54:24 The critical connection to all things IoT is FeatureOfInterest. 21:54:27 i agree with all this Kerry but IMHO we need to address those issues for which we have manpower. We have the sampling feature manpower right in the team. I agree that we need more on devices and so forth. All I am trying to get us agree on is that we need more on sampling. 21:55:07 ack KJanowic 21:55:15 q+ 21:55:22 ack ahaller2 21:55:33 ahaller2: I can include samplingfeatures in the graph if that is important for the group 21:55:35 ack ahaller 21:56:29 ack roba 21:56:46 kerry: my objections is that we have many other things and we have not voted on them 21:57:13 roba: it is worthwhile to find this bridge between sensors and samplingfeatures 21:57:36 roba: in favour to include samplingfeatures, and it is a good use case for the modularisation 21:58:46 roba: it should be visible to the outside that this is something we consider 22:00:13 kerry: ssn proposes sampling, but can not be used on its own 22:00:13 q? 22:00:17 One approach would be to define the "interfaces" to proposed modules in advance of working on the modules, e.g. a stub representing a default sampling feature. 22:00:18 Agreed! work on adding sampling feature and more on devices at the same time. 22:00:52 roba: we don't need to worry about details yet, but we should get the design right 22:01:02 see also here about the second part: http://schema.geolink.org/patterns/core/physicalsample.html 22:01:35 +1 to kerry's suggestion 22:01:46 +1 22:01:46 kerry: proposal to work next on samplingfeatures and small devices modularity 22:01:51 +1 22:01:55 +1 22:01:55 I have to go. 22:02:06 +1 22:02:21 kerry: please put proposals on the wiki 22:02:30 bye bye 22:02:39 ... we may not have a meeting in two weeks time, because it may become a time meeting 22:02:40 joshli has left #sdwssn 22:02:46 Thanks everybody and bye bye 22:03:00 ... we will have a meeting, but it will be about time 22:03:01 cheers all 22:03:05 bye 22:03:19 bye 22:03:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:03:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/31-sdwssn-minutes.html kerry 22:03:29 bye 22:29:00 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn