20:53:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:53:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-irc
20:53:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:53:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:53:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
20:53:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
20:53:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:53:14 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2017
20:53:19 <kerry> make logs public
20:53:26 <kerry> trackbot, make logs public
20:53:26 <trackbot> Sorry, kerry, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs public'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
20:53:47 <kerry> rrsagent, make logs public
20:54:45 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
20:56:30 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
20:58:20 <kerry> present+ kerry
20:58:51 <ScottSimmons> ScottSimmons has joined #sdwssn
21:00:26 <ScottSimmons> present+ ScottSimmons
21:01:06 <kerry> chair: kerry
21:01:09 <kerry> scribe: laurent
21:01:23 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
21:01:35 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
21:02:14 <laurent_oz> laurent_oz has joined #sdwssn
21:02:18 <kerry> regrets+ armin
21:02:26 <roba> present+
21:02:35 <laurent_oz> present+ laurent_oz
21:02:43 <laurent_oz> scribenick laurent_oz
21:03:15 <kerry> scribenick: laurent_oz
21:04:30 <kerry> topic: approve minutes   last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes
21:04:46 <kerry> +1
21:05:04 <roba> NOTUC
21:05:18 <laurent_oz> +1
21:05:20 <kerry> topic: patent call
21:05:28 <kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
21:05:33 <SimonCox> no objection to unanimous consent
21:05:33 <roba> No Objection to Unanimous Consent :-)
21:05:56 <laurent_oz> No input for patent call
21:06:02 <ScottSimmons> sorry for not being heard in my answer - was just jabbering endlessly on mute
21:06:07 <roba> objection to Sentence Case
21:06:35 <laurent_oz> Kerry explains she picked the pending issues.
21:06:40 <kerry> topic: SSN WD has been published here: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/. Next WD due when and what?
21:06:57 <laurent_oz> ... concgratulations to everyone.
21:07:14 <laurent_oz> ... Q. when is our next WD due.
21:07:51 <laurent_oz> March for next step in W3C process.
21:08:06 <laurent_oz> SSN document not in very good shape,
21:08:29 <laurent_oz> ... One release a month, one this month and the next one would be the Candidate rec.
21:08:54 <laurent_oz> ... so proposal is to aim for a rerlease in one month from now circa the 18th of February (week of)
21:08:58 <roba> q+
21:09:05 <kerry> ack roba
21:09:15 <KJanowic> KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
21:09:46 <laurent_oz> Roba: will we have to sync with the other deliverables of SDW?
21:10:29 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
21:10:33 <laurent_oz> Kerry: fair comments but is not applicable to all the documents (the notes are not going through the same process)
21:10:34 <kerry> q?
21:11:03 <roba> i think first come best dressed anyway...
21:11:35 <laurent_oz> ... question to Simon about value of suncing the release of the document at the same time which means the OWL Time document
21:11:55 <laurent_oz> Simon: I think the OWL Time document is in good shape.
21:12:32 <laurent_oz> Kerry: agenda point reminder of vote happeneing at the next plenary.
21:13:02 <laurent_oz> Kerry: the question is whether OWL Time also wants to have an intermediate release.
21:13:16 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
21:13:17 <KJanowic> present+ kjanowic
21:13:20 <laurent_oz> Simon : Yes and yes it would be a good idea to sync both releases.
21:14:01 <laurent_oz> Kerry: the plan is to release the OWL Time WD in sync with the next SSN release the week of 18 February
21:14:47 <laurent_oz> Kerry: any other comments on that plan?
21:15:19 <kerry> resolved: release next wd week of 18th feb
21:15:41 <kerry> topic: Commit workflow going forward (Armin)
21:15:51 <laurent_oz> +q
21:16:02 <kerry> ack laurent_oz
21:17:11 <laurent_oz> Laurent: new to GitHub, have not seen the ssn sub-group using a dashboard
21:17:46 <laurent_oz> Kerry: thanks, yes, it's worth raising the points with the parties concerned (Danh, Armin)
21:17:53 <kerry> topic: SSN usage analysis (Raul)
21:18:17 <RaulGarciaCastro> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
21:18:48 <laurent_oz> Raul: link to the document based on
21:19:07 <laurent_oz> ... an analysis of the vocabulary registries (e.g. LOV)
21:19:14 <RaulGarciaCastro> https://goo.gl/forms/RNZqupczFR14rMEz2
21:19:24 <laurent_oz> ... now moving on a second phase when we are asking specific people
21:19:36 <laurent_oz> ... which are asked to fill the form (2nd link)
21:20:01 <kerry> q+
21:20:04 <laurent_oz> ... if not, there is also the option of doing this manually (more cumbersome).
21:20:29 <kerry> ack raul
21:20:35 <laurent_oz> Kerry: fantastic work
21:21:14 <SimonCox> q+
21:21:22 <laurent_oz> ... the idea is that we may be able to reduce the time required in the CR phase
21:21:57 <laurent_oz> ... Is there an automatic transposition of the form content to the final table?
21:22:22 <laurent_oz> * Raul you're mute
21:22:33 <laurent_oz> q+
21:23:19 <kerry> laurent_oz: saw some other intersting apps and mentioned to kerry to follow up
21:23:52 <kerry> action: kerry to track down some other implementations re email from laurent
21:23:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Track down some other implementations re email from laurent [on Kerry Taylor - due 2017-01-24].
21:24:03 <KJanowic> Yes, I will contact 52North
21:24:20 <kerry> action: KJanowic to chase up umanchester implementation of ssn
21:24:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-253 - Chase up umanchester implementation of ssn [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-01-24].
21:24:52 <laurent_oz> Raul: Yes we can move the data automatically from the from
21:24:56 <KJanowic> umanchester?
21:25:02 <laurent_oz> s/from/form/
21:25:22 <KJanowic> umanchester is 52north, yes? Or at least University of Muenster.
21:25:24 <laurent_oz> Raul is asking people to complete forms to add implementations
21:25:35 <KJanowic> s/umanchester/52north
21:26:01 <SimonCox> Can we add SOSA classes/properties to the census?
21:26:03 <laurent_oz> Kerry: can we put this on the agenda for every week coming forward
21:26:31 <KJanowic> yes, 52north. I will contact C Stasch
21:26:54 <kerry> ack SimonCox
21:27:19 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
21:27:39 <laurent_oz> Simon: about the usage survey, what will happen to the proposed SOSA classes and properties?
21:27:41 <KJanowic> I agree, that is a good idea. +1
21:27:49 <laurent_oz> ... can Raull add them to the form?
21:28:10 <laurent_oz> ... once we've worked on the role of SOSA and SSN is
21:28:29 <laurent_oz> Raul: at this stage I'd rather not add SOSA
21:29:26 <laurent_oz> Kerry: looking at the REC track conditions, SSN is in the normative part, if SOSA is in the normative part then yes we will have to do the same thing.
21:30:03 <KJanowic> Yes, SOSA should be the normative part as well. Lets not rediscuss this over and over again. We will call for implementations
21:30:11 <laurent_oz> .... but agree with Raul, that it is going to be difficult to get through the process for the new stuff
21:30:52 <KJanowic> I see Simon's point, especially as the new SSN concepts are really new in many regards
21:31:02 <laurent_oz> Simon: this depends on the approach we will choose in mixing SOSA and SSN
21:32:03 <KJanowic> Just keep in mind that like 50% of the old SSN has changed in comparison to the new version.
21:32:20 <KJanowic> q+
21:32:36 <laurent_oz> Kerry: let me try to summarise. We opt to keep the SSN classes and properties as they with the aim to get them approved by the W3C as they are (now getting to the phase where we will see if W3C is OK)
21:33:14 <SimonCox> q+
21:33:34 <KJanowic> I do not think that anybody can speak for Phil here. Lets talk to Phil if we need these details.
21:33:40 <laurent_oz> For SOSA terms, the plan is to ask for implementation in the context of SOSA (we cannot use the reference to SSN to claim implementations).
21:33:41 <SimonCox> If defintions cannot be changed, then it appears we cannot revise SSN at all?
21:34:02 <laurent_oz> The work done by Raul will only be applicable if it is the same term.
21:34:26 <KJanowic> Disagree again
21:34:43 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+ to say that right now the document is an analysis of the usage of SSN 1.0, not an implementation report
21:34:48 <laurent_oz> q-
21:35:26 <laurent_oz> For SOSA, we don't have as many terms to survey.
21:35:42 <kerry> q?
21:35:49 <kerry> ack kerry
21:35:51 <kerry> ack KJanowic
21:36:57 <laurent_oz> KJanowic: I will start the process for the SOSA terms which mirrors what Raul is doing
21:36:58 <kerry> action KJanowic to lead collecting sosa implementations
21:36:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Lead collecting sosa implementations [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-01-24].
21:37:32 <kerry> ack SimonCox
21:38:09 <KJanowic> q+
21:38:50 <laurent_oz> Simon: want to comment on the scope of revising the definitions of the old SSN, feel that it is too restrictive to have a default position of no change, Refers to example discussed on mailing list
21:39:19 <KJanowic> Okay lets make sure we have this in text: "There CAN be changes to the definitions of SSN".
21:39:31 <SimonCox> If change is allowed, then why not move the key concepts into SOSA?
21:39:58 <roba> if we can change SSN - then surely the issue is whether this can be done to match SOSA - otherwise we are letting pre-existing implementations wag the dog of design.. instead of learning from them
21:40:15 <SimonCox> +1 roba
21:40:52 <kerry> q?
21:41:07 <KJanowic> In fact, most SSN definitions are about to change simply because we removed DUL and because there are many inconsistencies in the old SSN
21:41:09 <kerry> ack RaulGarciaCastro
21:41:09 <Zakim> RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that right now the document is an analysis of the usage of SSN 1.0, not an implementation report
21:41:09 <laurent_oz> Kerry:reckon there has been changes to SSN and expect new ones but highlights that we are also aiming for piggy backing on the existing implementations
21:41:55 <laurent_oz> Raul: reminder that his actions focuses on SSN 1.0.
21:42:01 <KJanowic> Yes, I believe Raul is correct.
21:42:09 <laurent_oz> s/his actions/his action/
21:42:45 <KJanowic> But Phil also reminded us numerous times of the fact that this is not strictly required for each and every single aspect of SSN
21:42:49 <KJanowic> q+
21:43:04 <laurent_oz> ... then the process is to mark as risk the parts of the specification for which we don't have any implementations
21:43:08 <roba> IMHO better to have a "more-complete-fit-for-purpose" ontology in Note stage than push something that has an arbitrarily limited scope into a more solid standard - and rely on implementations via ioT perhaps to pick up the process - we can declare its IoT-ready perhaps:?
21:43:17 <kerry> q+
21:43:21 <kerry> ack KJanowic
21:43:53 <kerry> q+
21:44:29 <laurent_oz> KJanowic: thnaks for the reminder. What I understand from Phil, is that it is OK not to have an implementation for everything.
21:44:57 <laurent_oz> Kerry: NO, W3C is strict on having AT LEAST two implementations
21:45:14 <kerry> q+
21:46:05 <laurent_oz> KJanowic: as this is a joint project with OGC, it is unclear what the Process here.
21:46:31 <KJanowic> I have not suggested that
21:46:34 <kerry> q?
21:46:41 <laurent_oz> Kerry: correction required, it is not an issue of lack of clarity
21:46:51 <kerry> q?
21:47:27 <kerry> topic: close issue-128? "Namespace information block(s)"
21:47:39 <kerry> issue-128?
21:47:39 <trackbot> issue-128 -- Namespace information block(s) -- raised
21:47:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/128
21:47:46 <kerry> close isue-128
21:47:48 <laurent_oz> Simon: ack that this issue can be closed
21:47:54 <kerry> close issue-128
21:47:54 <trackbot> Closed issue-128.
21:48:14 <kerry> topic: sosa:Platform vs. ssn:Platform, why is it different? ISSUE 88 (carried from https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes#item05) action-251 (Krzysztof)
21:49:28 <laurent_oz> KJanowic: ssn:Platform and sosa:Platform can be aligned from the formal semantic viewpoint
21:50:10 <laurent_oz> From the informal perspective, the textual part, there are no unresovable issues.
21:50:37 <kerry> q+
21:51:17 <laurent_oz> The old definitions was basically based on the attach relationship and the is-a to PhysicalThing (associated to DUL alignment)
21:51:47 <kerry> close action-251
21:51:47 <trackbot> Closed action-251.
21:51:58 <laurent_oz> q+
21:52:12 <kerry> ack laurent
21:52:32 <kerry> laurent: find th right balanve between usability, generecity and something recognizable
21:52:43 <kerry> ...concenr that we are not creating things that people recognise
21:53:20 <kerry> KJanowic: not an easy task we have to keep in mind that ssn has no formal semantics and attched as an entitiy is also a root concept
21:53:28 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+ to say that I would try to have the same definition (at least textual) in both sosa and ssn
21:53:35 <kerry> ....so i agree but both have to be revisitied
21:53:49 <kerry> q?
21:53:53 <kerry> ack kerry
21:54:13 <laurent_oz> Kerry: is there still some tuning required?
21:54:30 <kerry> ack RaulGarciaCastro
21:54:30 <Zakim> RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that I would try to have the same definition (at least textual) in both sosa and ssn
21:54:34 <laurent_oz> Kjanowic: Yes, a little more polished
21:54:54 <kerry> +1
21:55:01 <KJanowic> q+
21:55:21 <kerry> ack KJanowic
21:55:27 <laurent_oz> Raul: prefers when the two the (textual) definitions are the same
21:55:50 <kerry> q+
21:57:03 <laurent_oz> Kerry: starts the discussions on the handling of virtual sensor
21:57:22 <laurent_oz> Kerry disagrees.
21:58:14 <laurent_oz> Laurent: can you share examples on the issues you raise that we can work on to reach consensus?
21:58:41 <laurent_oz> q+
21:59:09 <kerry> ack laurent
21:59:15 <KJanowic> in old SSN platforms are physical objects
21:59:41 <kerry> laurent: asks for examples of how this should be
21:59:52 <kerry> ...more examples needed
22:00:24 <kerry> q?
22:00:41 <kerry> topic: Owl-time vote for WD in plenary meeting next week
22:01:02 <laurent_oz> Please answer through the mailing list if you cannot attend the meeting
22:01:08 <RaulGarciaCastro> bye
22:01:11 <KJanowic> thanks, bye bye
22:01:16 <kerry> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html kerry
22:01:29 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has left #sdwssn
22:01:48 <kerry> thanks you laurent for scribing!
22:01:55 <kerry> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:01:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html kerry
23:31:12 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn