Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference

17 Jan 2017

See also: IRC log


kerry, ScottSimmons, SimonCox, roba, laurent_oz, ClausStadler, kjanowic
armin, PhilA


<kerry> make logs public

<kerry> trackbot, make logs public

<trackbot> Sorry, kerry, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs public'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<kerry> scribe: laurent

scribenick laurent_oz

<kerry> scribenick: laurent_oz

approve minutes last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes

<kerry> +1

<roba> NOTUC


patent call

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

<SimonCox> no objection to unanimous consent

<roba> No Objection to Unanimous Consent :-)

No input for patent call

<ScottSimmons> sorry for not being heard in my answer - was just jabbering endlessly on mute

<roba> objection to Sentence Case

Kerry explains she picked the pending issues.

SSN WD has been published here: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/. Next WD due when and what?

scribe: concgratulations to everyone.
... Q. when is our next WD due.

March for next step in W3C process.

SSN document not in very good shape,

scribe: One release a month, one this month and the next one would be the Candidate rec.
... so proposal is to aim for a rerlease in one month from now circa the 18th of February (week of)

Roba: will we have to sync with the other deliverables of SDW?

Kerry: fair comments but is not applicable to all the documents (the notes are not going through the same process)

<roba> i think first come best dressed anyway...

Kerry: question to Simon about value of suncing the release of the document at the same time which means the OWL Time document

Simon: I think the OWL Time document is in good shape.

Kerry: agenda point reminder of vote happeneing at the next plenary.
... the question is whether OWL Time also wants to have an intermediate release.

Simon: Yes and yes it would be a good idea to sync both releases.

Kerry: the plan is to release the OWL Time WD in sync with the next SSN release the week of 18 February
... any other comments on that plan?

RESOLUTION: release next wd week of 18th feb

Commit workflow going forward (Armin)


Laurent: new to GitHub, have not seen the ssn sub-group using a dashboard

Kerry: thanks, yes, it's worth raising the points with the parties concerned (Danh, Armin)

SSN usage analysis (Raul)

<RaulGarciaCastro> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

Raul: link to the document based on
... an analysis of the vocabulary registries (e.g. LOV)

<RaulGarciaCastro> https://goo.gl/forms/RNZqupczFR14rMEz2

Raul: now moving on a second phase when we are asking specific people
... which are asked to fill the form (2nd link)
... if not, there is also the option of doing this manually (more cumbersome).

Kerry: fantastic work
... the idea is that we may be able to reduce the time required in the CR phase
... Is there an automatic transposition of the form content to the final table?

* Raul you're mute

<kerry> laurent_oz: saw some other intersting apps and mentioned to kerry to follow up

<kerry> ACTION: kerry to track down some other implementations re email from laurent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Track down some other implementations re email from laurent [on Kerry Taylor - due 2017-01-24].

<KJanowic> Yes, I will contact 52North

<kerry> ACTION: KJanowic to chase up umanchester implementation of ssn [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-253 - Chase up umanchester implementation of ssn [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-01-24].

Raul: Yes we can move the data automatically from the form

<KJanowic> umanchester?

<KJanowic> 52north is 52north, yes? Or at least University of Muenster.

Raul is asking people to complete forms to add implementations

<SimonCox> Can we add SOSA classes/properties to the census?

Kerry: can we put this on the agenda for every week coming forward

<KJanowic> yes, 52north. I will contact C Stasch

Simon: about the usage survey, what will happen to the proposed SOSA classes and properties?

<KJanowic> I agree, that is a good idea. +1

Simon: can Raull add them to the form?
... once we've worked on the role of SOSA and SSN is

Raul: at this stage I'd rather not add SOSA

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.

<KJanowic> Yes, SOSA should be the normative part as well. Lets not rediscuss this over and over again. We will call for implementations

Kerry: but agree with Raul, that it is going to be difficult to get through the process for the new stuff

<KJanowic> I see Simon's point, especially as the new SSN concepts are really new in many regards

Simon: this depends on the approach we will choose in mixing SOSA and SSN

<KJanowic> Just keep in mind that like 50% of the old SSN has changed in comparison to the new version.

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)

<KJanowic> I do not think that anybody can speak for Phil here. Lets talk to Phil if we need these details.

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).

<SimonCox> If defintions cannot be changed, then it appears we cannot revise SSN at all?

The work done by Raul will only be applicable if it is the same term.

<KJanowic> Disagree again

For SOSA, we don't have as many terms to survey.

KJanowic: I will start the process for the SOSA terms which mirrors what Raul is doing

<kerry> action KJanowic to lead collecting sosa implementations

<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Lead collecting sosa implementations [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-01-24].

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

<KJanowic> Okay lets make sure we have this in text: "There CAN be changes to the definitions of SSN".

<SimonCox> If change is allowed, then why not move the key concepts into SOSA?

<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

<SimonCox> +1 roba

<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

<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

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

Raul: reminder that his action focuses on SSN 1.0.

<KJanowic> Yes, I believe Raul is correct.

<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

Raul: then the process is to mark as risk the parts of the specification for which we don't have any implementations

<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:?

KJanowic: thnaks for the reminder. What I understand from Phil, is that it is OK not to have an implementation for everything.

Kerry: NO, W3C is strict on having AT LEAST two implementations

KJanowic: as this is a joint project with OGC, it is unclear what the Process here.

<KJanowic> I have not suggested that

Kerry: correction required, it is not an issue of lack of clarity

close issue-128? "Namespace information block(s)"

<kerry> issue-128?

<trackbot> issue-128 -- Namespace information block(s) -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/128

<kerry> close isue-128

Simon: ack that this issue can be closed

<kerry> close issue-128

<trackbot> Closed issue-128.

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)

KJanowic: ssn:Platform and sosa:Platform can be aligned from the formal semantic viewpoint

From the informal perspective, the textual part, there are no unresovable issues.

The old definitions was basically based on the attach relationship and the is-a to PhysicalThing (associated to DUL alignment)

<kerry> close action-251

<trackbot> Closed action-251.

<kerry> laurent: find th right balanve between usability, generecity and something recognizable

<kerry> ...concenr that we are not creating things that people recognise

<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

<kerry> ....so i agree but both have to be revisitied

Kerry: is there still some tuning required?

<Zakim> RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that I would try to have the same definition (at least textual) in both sosa and ssn

Kjanowic: Yes, a little more polished

<kerry> +1

Raul: prefers when the two the (textual) definitions are the same

Kerry: starts the discussions on the handling of virtual sensor

Kerry disagrees.

Laurent: can you share examples on the issues you raise that we can work on to reach consensus?

<KJanowic> in old SSN platforms are physical objects

<kerry> laurent: asks for examples of how this should be

<kerry> ...more examples needed

Owl-time vote for WD in plenary meeting next week

Please answer through the mailing list if you cannot attend the meeting

<RaulGarciaCastro> bye

<KJanowic> thanks, bye bye

<kerry> thanks you laurent for scribing!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: kerry to track down some other implementations re email from laurent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: KJanowic to chase up umanchester implementation of ssn [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02]

Summary of Resolutions

  1. release next wd week of 18th feb
[End of minutes]