See also: IRC log
<Phila> My apologies but I'm driving (I've pulled over to check meeting is working) so I can't join the call
<SimonCox> I executed my action https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/221 and also added a note to the related issue https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86 - see table here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
<ahaller2> scribe: RaulGarciaCastro
<ahaller2> Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-sdwssn-minutes
<ahaller2> +1
<kerry> +1
Wasn’t there
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<roba> +1 - note its missing my name as present
ahaller2: Minutes approved
kerry: For SSN we are planning
both days (reviews agenda)
... … vote on the second day (but could change)
... … we can take also the Friday 9:00 slot
... … we should choose the issues to be discussed during the
meeting
ahaller2: it seems that no one from the SSN group will be in person
kerry: if we think that we are not going to use some slot, better release it
ahaller2: the 4 hours will be enough for us
kerry: We should be prepared to put the issues in the document
<kerry> +1
<ahaller2> +1 for simon!
SimonCox: the table contains the
class names and comments from 4 main ontologies
... … SOSA, SSN, O&M and om-lite
... issue raised by Kerry: different comments in
FeatureOfInterest
... In the table I just focused on classes, not
properties
... For Observation I’ve included the ssn and ssnx classes
ahaller2: Let’s discuss FeatureOfInterest
kerry: It would be nice if we
have the table for properties
... … SSN recorded the provenance of term definitions; this
should appear in the table to avoid losing the
information
... … in the ontology (in annotation properties)
<ahaller2> for featureOfInterest:
<ahaller2> skos:exactMatch 'featureOfInterest' [O&M - ISO/DIS 19156]
<ahaller2> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=41579
<ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: in the sosa core I have to understand what ObservableProperty is
ahaller2: As an ontology engineer I understand the definition, from the web developer point of view it is understandable
SimonCox: The definition of feature from the spatial community maybe is not useful for the web community
<ahaller2> +1 to simon
roba: Defining things is complex;
in favour of the current definition
... But, should the commitment be in text or formalised?
<SimonCox> 'feature' has too much baggage - lets make it a smaller target, specific to its role in observations.
kerry: Don’t know the answer but
let’s try to be consistent
... Feature is a horrible word, but the reuse of the OGC models
was deliberate
... We could use another name, but using the same name and
changing the definition is something I don’t like
... Why can’t we do multiple annotations/comments? E.g.,
theoretical definition from O&M + a more convenient
definition + examples embedded
ahaller2: SOSA already has
comment and examples in different annotations, we can follow
this approach
... We changed Property to ObservableProperty to avoid
misunderstandings in the web community
... everyone to take a look in the table and comment directly
in the wiki
... in a different color if possible
kerry: Renaming Property opens a whole can of worms
ahaller2: Yes, that’s issue
87
... If we change annotations we may need to move them to
SSN
<kerry> kerry notes that she *did* receive the email about the table of comments -- and did manage to look at it beforehand --- thks Simon
ahaller2: There are problems with
hashes; other than that the tool does the trick (with manual
fixing afterwards)
... … have not tried with other languages
... … I’ll try it with the whole SSN and let’s take a decision
in next meeting
<ClausStadler> In regard to languages: I see that Sosa in the current state is inconsistent of using @en, ^^xsd:string and neither on the literals.
kerry: the use of the existential restriction is redundant due to the universal restriction; Krzysztof sais that it affects reasoning efficiency
s /Krzysztof sais that it affects reasoning efficiency/Krzysztof sais that removing the restriction affects reasoning efficiency/
ahaller2: Anyone has experience in this so we can ask?
kerry: Krzysztof said that he would check and come back
s /sais/says/
<kerry> ACTION: Krzysztof to find out if existential restriction on hassubsystem casuses poor reasoning performance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Find out if existential restriction on hassubsystem casuses poor reasoning performance [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2016-11-29].
ahaller2: The name was changed
having in mind the web community
... … but the meaning is the same as in SSN
kerry: Coming back to issue 86, we don’t need a feature in SOSA. It is only used to bind the type of the property. Is it not enough with the object property? Can we remove the FeatureOfInterest class?
<ahaller2> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/sosa-core-overview.pdf
ahaller2: Maybe we need to split the issues
<kerry> no
<kerry> no
ahaller2: No need to do so, it is not related to ObservableProperty
s /ahaller2: No need to do so/kerry: No need to do so/
roba: In practice it is useful to
have the concept for people to understand, so I’m not in favour
of removal
... What is an observable property and how is it related to a
Feature? Right now the relationship Feature-Property does not
appear
... And differentiating the sample and the feature is also
useful
kerry: Still, having the properties is enough; having the class does not add much
ahaller2: Can you change issue 87
and raise another one for the FeatureOfInterest class?
... … kerry?
kerry: Sure
ahaller2: Next week we have to
decide who will write which part of the document
... Closing meeting
<ahaller2> thanks, bye!
<kerry> bye!
Bye!
<ClausStadler> bye!
<ahaller2> type RRSAgent, draft minutes