20:58:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:58:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/24-sdwssn-irc
20:58:23 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
20:58:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:58:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:58:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
20:58:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
20:58:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:58:27 <trackbot> Date: 24 January 2017
20:58:39 <phila> s/Working/SSN Sub/
20:58:43 <phila> chair: Armin
20:58:47 <phila> scribe: phila
20:59:12 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170124
20:59:14 <KJanowic> KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
21:00:09 <kerry> present+ Kerry
21:00:24 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170124
21:00:30 <phila> present+
21:01:05 <laurent_oz> laurent_oz has joined #sdwssn
21:01:09 <KJanowic> present+
21:01:54 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
21:02:42 <laurent_oz> present+
21:03:03 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
21:03:05 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
21:03:22 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
21:04:05 <SimonCox> Is webex running? I see 'meeting not started'.
21:04:13 <ahaller2> webex is started, yes
21:04:48 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:04:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/24-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
21:05:16 <phila> Topic: Preliminaries
21:05:24 <phila> Last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-sdwssn-minutes
21:05:30 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
21:05:37 <phila> zakim, who is here?
21:05:37 <Zakim> Present: Kerry, phila, KJanowic, DanhLePhuoc, laurent_oz, ahaller2
21:05:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see ClausStadler, ahaller2, SimonCox, laurent_oz, KJanowic, Zakim, DanhLePhuoc, RRSAgent, phila, kerry, trackbot
21:05:39 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
21:05:52 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Patent Call
21:06:00 <ahaller2> topic: patent call
21:06:00 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
21:06:12 <ahaller2> topic: Commit Workflow for Editor’s draft
21:06:51 <phila> ahaller2: When making edits to our editors' draft, we had the idea that Danh was the only one to merge PRs. That's not practical
21:07:08 <phila> ... So we agreed that evertone should stick to their own branch
21:07:18 <ahaller2> .       All commits to the Editor's Draft + the ontologies the Editor’s draft depends upon regardless if you are editor or not need to be committed to your own branch
21:07:18 <ahaller2> 2.       Pull requests need to be issued assigning all editors but yourself, but multiple commits can be made in each PULL request. Each commit should be atomic enough to make it easy for the approver to recognise the diff.
21:07:18 <ahaller2> 3.       The Pull request needs to be approved by ONE editor other than the one who made the change.
21:07:20 <ahaller2> 4.       This means that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until your PULL request is accepted, you need to again create a new Branch from the main branch in your local repository. Preferably, though, the PULL request should be accepted quickly and prior to you needing to make a new branch.
21:07:49 <kerry> q+ to speak on workflow
21:08:27 <phila> ahaller2: Might be useful to just assign one editor so they can make the merge, but alert all the editors
21:09:06 <phila> ... If you make a change in the meantime, you need to make a new local branch of your own and then push that, so you might have multiple branches. That shouldn't happen often.
21:09:19 <phila> q?
21:09:20 <ahaller2> q+
21:09:23 <phila> ack k
21:09:23 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on workflow
21:09:24 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:09:56 <phila> kerry: I'm OK with that. SLight clarification - doesn't matter who we assign in GH, any editor can make the merge.
21:10:04 <phila> ... If an editor makes a change, assign another editor
21:10:12 <KJanowic> q+
21:10:14 <phila> kerry: I don't think assigning the person trells them
21:10:30 <phila> ahaller2: I think it does sometimes. Send an e-mail to all editors that you made a change.
21:10:33 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
21:10:37 <phila> ... Assigning an editor, it could be anyone
21:10:42 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:10:59 <phila> kerry: Should I take on a merge even if it's assigned to another editor?
21:11:07 <phila> ahaller2: I think only the assigned person can do it.
21:11:28 <phila> ahaller2: I guess you could assign them all, and then if someone has a prob they can be removed.
21:11:29 <KJanowic> q+
21:12:03 <phila> kerry: 2nd comment - I find multiple branches as painful as everyone, you can't build on top of your new work.
21:12:29 <KJanowic> q+
21:12:32 <phila> ... I suggest... once you've done a PR, you can keep putting more commits into that same PR, that works
21:12:44 <phila> ... Even if it hasn't been merged, you can continue to work on it.
21:13:18 <phila> ... But you follow Jeremy's original workflow, you can continue to operate on your branch and get everyone else's changes. That works if there are no conflicts.
21:13:26 <phila> ... GH is clever enough to handle this.
21:13:34 <phila> q?
21:14:07 <laurent_oz> Is it this page https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/How_to_work_with_GitHub_for_ssn
21:14:12 <KJanowic> May I jump in here to add something to the discussion?
21:14:17 <kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/How_to_work_with_GitHub_for_ssn
21:14:56 <phila> kerry: Talks through the page she's linked to
21:15:32 <KJanowic> q+
21:16:18 <phila> [More discussion between Kerry and Armin]
21:16:38 <phila> ahaller2: Main message is that PRs should be approved or disapproved quickly by the editors.
21:18:08 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:18:11 <laurent_oz> q+
21:18:30 <phila> KJanowic: For the sake of simplicity. 2 things - I think GH is good at sneding off the e-mails but it depends what you're subscribed to.
21:18:43 <phila> ... I only get them if I subscribe to the whole repository
21:19:14 <phila> ... The 2nd thing, I suggest if we just make a small change, then flag it as such
21:19:37 <ahaller2> ack laurent_oz
21:19:38 <laurent_oz> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0109.html
21:19:41 <phila> ... Work on small pieces, better not to edit multiple files at once
21:20:08 <phila> laurent_oz: I saw a mail on the list... There are PRs that correspond to the editors work, and some about the discussion.
21:20:22 <laurent_oz> https://waffle.io/w3c/svgwg
21:20:32 <phila> ... I think it's better to tell people who are looking at PRs what PR is about.
21:20:44 <phila> ... The SVG WG uses labels etc. and makes it easier
21:20:51 <KJanowic> @laurent_oz: yes, this is why I am proposing small changes that are well documented in the pull message. keep your changes as atomic as possible. E.g., if you fix typos do not change axioms at the same time.
21:21:28 <phila> ahaller2: We use the W3C issue tracker for issues
21:21:33 <KJanowic> and the issue tracker works very well for that
21:21:45 <phila> ... We did already agree that PRs specific to SSN or Time, a label in front of the PR would be useful
21:21:52 <KJanowic> (both the w3c and the github trackers)
21:22:40 <KJanowic> @phila: that would be fantastic!
21:22:56 <phila> laurent_oz: I don't know whether something on GH has been discussed or approved etc. This multiple view is difficult, that's why I'm asking for more connection between the two
21:22:58 <ahaller2> q?
21:23:01 <kerry> q+ to answer laurent
21:23:19 <phila> ahaller2: If you issue a PR, you can always remove the PR and work on your branch.
21:23:23 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:23:23 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to answer laurent
21:23:35 <phila> kerry: That's a disaster as well because you have to do it again
21:23:44 <KJanowic> make requests on individual files and you will avoid 90% of the problems
21:23:49 <phila> ahaller2: No, removing yourtPR doesn't undo anything you've done
21:24:09 <phila> kerry: When I'm doing work, I tell you what the issue or action no was.
21:24:32 <phila> ahaller2: I'll update my workflow and send it round again.
21:24:39 <ahaller2> q?
21:24:44 <kerry> q+
21:24:48 <phila> Topic: O&M alignment “normative” or “non-normative”
21:25:26 <phila> ahaller2: There was a request by Simon  late last year why this one is non-normative
21:25:36 <KJanowic> q+
21:25:40 <phila> ... The linking to O&M is important, people use it all the time.
21:25:52 <phila> ... Simon, you obviously want to pull in the OGC links
21:26:22 <phila> SimonCox: The comment I can make - I see no difficulty in making statements that are normative
21:26:31 <phila> ... It's difficult if we're tryinbg to match up OWL and UML
21:26:46 <phila> ... How do we express the UML elements that we're claiming to include
21:26:53 <phila> ... and there's a difference in modelling
21:26:59 <phila> q+ to talk about UML/OWL
21:27:02 <KJanowic> It is even more problematic as, formally speaking, we have an monotonical environment
21:27:09 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:27:11 <phila> ack k
21:27:27 <phila> kerry: Dunno if this affects normative/informative - can we do it through the mapping tables?
21:27:37 <phila> ... How it relates to the UML model
21:27:41 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
21:27:51 <phila> ... That part of the mapping table you've already done makes sense to me.
21:27:53 <laurent_oz> q+
21:28:00 <KJanowic> q+
21:28:00 <phila> ack me
21:28:00 <ahaller2> ack phila
21:28:01 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about UML/OWL
21:28:09 <SimonCox> q+
21:28:26 <KJanowic> (was somehow dropped from the queue)
21:28:47 <laurent_oz> Phil : issue of converting UML to OWL comes up in many contexts. There are official ways of doing which create an "awful" result.
21:28:50 <SimonCox> ISO 19150-2 provides a recipe, but it is ugly
21:29:00 <SimonCox> THat's why I did om-lite instead
21:29:04 <laurent_oz> Approach which works is to work directly in OWL.
21:29:06 <SimonCox> and sam-lite
21:29:15 <phila> SimonCox: That's what I did essentially
21:29:24 <phila> ... There is an ISO standard for this
21:29:34 <phila> ... which produces an OWL view of a UML model
21:29:45 <phila> ... We tried to make it less ugly but it's still ugly
21:29:56 <phila> ... So I did a hand conversion
21:30:04 <phila> phila: Sounds like the right approach to me, SimonCox
21:30:11 <phila> SimonCox: The work has been done in the mapping table
21:30:34 <ahaller2> q?
21:30:35 <phila> ... It was originally done so that we can examine the textual definitions. Without that the table becomes lean.
21:30:38 <phila> ack l
21:30:39 <ahaller2> ack laurent_oz
21:31:09 <phila> laurent_oz: For me, it's the same... I've been trying to work on the alignmenet with his work. The issue is that these ontologies are not as official as other ones.
21:31:28 <phila> ... I wouldn't go for normative. Good to have an example of mapping
21:31:43 <phila> ... but at this stage we haven't committed to publishing an official version.
21:31:46 <kerry> q+
21:31:47 <ahaller2> q?
21:31:59 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:32:01 <phila> laurent_oz: It's fine for me, it's the sme kind of situation
21:32:10 <ahaller2> s/sme/same
21:32:16 <phila> KJanowic: What exactly do we mean by alignment?
21:32:28 <phila> ... DO we mean sub class or equiv class statements?
21:32:36 <phila> ... We can't take aeway inferences after the fact.
21:32:48 <phila> ... DULCE Ultra-lite works for every day discussions
21:33:24 <phila> KJanowic: If we want to pick an alignment then I would pick O&M as it's the most used.
21:33:39 <phila> ... The current version of SOSA is in line with O&M. That's not true for Dulce
21:33:50 <phila> ... If they're both normative we'd be inconsistent
21:33:58 <phila> q+
21:34:05 <phila> q+ to ask about dul
21:34:09 <laurent_oz> s/Dulce/DOLCE/
21:34:19 <ahaller2> q?
21:34:21 <phila> ahaller2: To summarise, you're suggesting making O&M normative, dulce non-normative
21:34:23 <ahaller2> ack SimonCox
21:34:27 <phila> KJanowic: Yes, that would be fantastic
21:34:32 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:34:56 <phila> kerry: We're going round in circles again here. Most of us see no problem with multiple alignments that are inconsistent
21:35:00 <KJanowic> q+
21:35:07 <KJanowic> no, it wasn't given up at all
21:35:19 <phila> ... It's asking that every use of every term is consistent with every other use.
21:35:25 <phila> ... In consistent
21:35:39 <phila> ... The reason for alignment in some space is that people can bring it in and work with it.
21:35:40 <KJanowic> we cannot have inconisten alignment as this would not result in a valid ontology
21:36:05 <phila> kerry: And B - I suggest that the alignment to O&M be done wrt the O&M standard.
21:36:09 <ahaller2> s/inconsten/inconsistent
21:36:18 <phila> ... That's a UML doc. Sam-lite has no status
21:36:44 <phila> ... Simon may be able to help with that by promising that it's stable, that will help, but it hasn't been reviewed, not used AFAIK?
21:36:45 <KJanowic> q+
21:37:01 <phila> kerry: OGC has published O&M
21:37:03 <phila> q- later
21:37:45 <SimonCox> FWIW - sam-lite is used in IGSN implementations in CSIRO and GA (not my work)
21:38:06 <phila> kerry: Doing the alignment formally in this spec won't make the sam-lite formal
21:38:13 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:38:22 <SimonCox> +1 that primary alignment should be to ISO 19156 O&M
21:38:30 <KJanowic> q+
21:39:21 <phila> KJanowic: To be clear here - in the ontology we need to be precise, if we say x is a sub class of y, then we can't have alignment to different ontologies that contradict each other
21:39:36 <kerry> q+
21:39:58 <phila> ... The second thing. When we put the alignment as part of the normative doc, there's no easy way to say optional. Not saying we shouldn't have the description, but
21:40:08 <SimonCox> Example of use of sam-lite in the wild: http://54.66.133.7/igsn-ld-api/sample/AU1000011?_view=igsn&_format=text/turtle
21:40:27 <phila> ahaller2: We also need to consider... would be use a different namespace
21:40:45 <ahaller2> q?
21:40:47 <phila> ... The standard may be inconsistent in itself but only if you use multiple namespaces
21:40:50 <ahaller2> ack phila
21:40:50 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about dul
21:40:52 <laurent_oz> Laurent: I have put all the alignments in a single ontology (doing what KJanowic claim is not possible) here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0117.html
21:41:58 <KJanowic> q+
21:42:19 <KJanowic> +1 to phila!
21:42:22 <KJanowic> q+
21:42:50 <phila> ahaller2: What is Simon is coming up with options?
21:43:12 <phila> ahaller2: WE don't want to introduce a full mapping from UML to OWL
21:43:13 <SimonCox> OK - I accept the challenge!
21:43:34 <ahaller2> q?
21:43:52 <phila> action: SimonCox to send e-mail with options for O&M alignment
21:43:52 <trackbot> Error finding 'SimonCox'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
21:43:58 <phila> action: Simon to send e-mail with options for O&M alignment
21:43:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Send e-mail with options for o&m alignment [on Simon Cox - due 2017-01-31].
21:44:00 <ahaller2> q?
21:44:02 <KJanowic> @laurent_oz: just to be sure we talk about the same. If you have alignments in form of subclasses than ssn:x subclass dul:y implies that every x is also an y. If we do so for O&M as well we will have that x is an y and a z and we need to be careful that the y and z’s are not disjoint classes.
21:44:11 <phila> q?
21:44:14 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:44:15 <KJanowic> yes
21:44:52 <phila> KJanowic: I just want to answer Phil's question on whether dulce matgters in this context. We used it in our incubator. Its top level version sn'[t used, it's not maintainedf
21:45:15 <phila> ... We said we're getting rid of it in SOSA so I'd be happy to see it go.
21:45:24 <phila> ... And I was responsible for introducing it
21:45:27 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:45:53 <KJanowic> q+
21:46:10 <phila> kerry: I put a lot of work into this a year ago and I'll be upset if it's dropped I have not said it should be normative.
21:46:38 <KJanowic> I have to disagree here Kerry.
21:46:43 <phila> ... It's part of SSN. All our SSN user base uses the dulce alignment, whether they use it or not. We've removed it so we can move on
21:46:59 <KJanowic> I ahve not said it is not used
21:47:01 <phila> kerry: Dulce is used, it is maintained, it is stable
21:47:07 <KJanowic> s/ahve/have
21:47:10 <phila> q+
21:47:33 <phila> kerry: No need for an either or
21:47:58 <phila> ahaller2: I don't think it's worth arguing about more here
21:47:58 <phila> q-
21:48:03 <KJanowic> But we can observe that the DUL link in SSN was broken for more than a year
21:48:12 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:48:20 <KJanowic> q+
21:48:46 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:48:52 <kerry> q+
21:49:19 <phila> KJanowic: There are 2 versions of dulce, one of the links doesn't work. We still get mails in the XG
21:49:29 <phila> ... asking about the 404 I can send the link
21:49:41 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:49:46 <KJanowic> http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DUL.owl
21:49:54 <KJanowic> q+
21:50:00 <phila> kerry: The current WD of SSN refers in the index and the published version of the doc, a stable, consustent version of dulce
21:50:05 <KJanowic> yes
21:50:09 <phila> q- KJanowic
21:50:34 <phila> ahaller2: Let's discuss this in the next meeting. It's not about removing the alignment, it's about normative/informative.
21:50:37 <ahaller2> topic: Proposal to align sosa:Platform and ssn:Platform from Krzysztof, taking into account virtual sensors (https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/#VirtualObservations) as of ISSUE 88 (carried from https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes#item05) and ACTION-251
21:51:39 <phila> ahaller2: There was a long discussion on the mailing list. There seems to be agreement that ssn and sosa Platform are equivalent
21:51:50 <phila> ... It's the rdfs:comment that are not aligned
21:52:07 <phila> ... The current comments don't mention virtual sensors, but we have a Use Case for these.
21:52:24 <phila> ... So the suggestion is to change the comment in the ssn:Platform
21:52:29 <kerry> q+
21:52:36 <KJanowic> q+
21:52:38 <phila> ... If necessary, use the old one
21:52:43 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:52:48 <phila> ... What is the opinion on the current proposal.
21:52:57 <phila> kerry: On the comment - yes, fine.
21:53:13 <phila> ... But it's too specific for the bigger problem which is that SOSA and SSN don't align
21:53:25 <phila> ... We don't have a use case for virtual platforms
21:53:38 <phila> ... Personally, I don't care [breaking up]
21:53:53 <phila> ... They're mostly the same, there are strong similarities
21:54:21 <phila> ... Third comment - there are issues around Platform being different
21:54:22 <phila> q+
21:54:36 <phila> q+ to talk about SOSA/SSN relationship
21:55:01 <kerry> q+
21:55:13 <kerry> no we have not agreed that ssn should subclass from sos
21:55:14 <phila> ahaller2: We haven't agreed that SSN imports SOSA
21:55:20 <kerry> ssn cannot subclass from sosa
21:55:30 <kerry> this idea of definitions isdoes not hold
21:55:30 <phila> ahaller2: SOSA terms need to be super classes and super properties of SSN
21:55:31 <KJanowic> q+
21:55:58 <phila> ahaller2: There's a use case around virtual observations which enatils a virtual sensor
21:56:00 <kerry> virtul observation does not require vitrual platform
21:56:38 <kerry> q+
21:56:39 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:56:49 <phila> KJanowic: These issues are strongly aligned
21:57:08 <phila> ... SOSA and SSN are aligned. Wherever possible, we use the same comments
21:57:15 <kerry> q+ to say that a formal ontological alignment to ssn does not exist
21:57:43 <kerry> q+ to commnet that ssn allows virual sensors as does sosa --- thius is sue is about virtual platforms
21:57:45 <phila> ... Paret if SSN allows for virtual sensors, other parts tend towards only allowing physical ones.
21:58:32 <kerry> subclass axioms do not work
21:58:40 <phila> KJanowic: We can have subclass axioms, which I think is the most reasonable way. All that would not work would be having SSN classes in SOSA.
21:58:56 <phila> ahaller2: Both are in separate namespace
21:58:56 <ahaller2> ack phila
21:58:56 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about SOSA/SSN relationship
21:59:11 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/images/modular_ontology.png the diagram
21:59:44 <kerry> I agree the huge proble m is that SOSA *is* different from ssn!!!!
21:59:47 <KJanowic> yes, we would have a very serious problem but luckily we do not have this problem
21:59:54 <KJanowic> +1 to phila
22:00:00 <ahaller2> +1 phila
22:00:09 <ahaller2> ack kerry
22:00:09 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to say that a formal ontological alignment to ssn does not exist and to commnet that ssn allows virual sensors as does sosa --- thius is sue is about virtual
22:00:12 <SimonCox> q?
22:00:13 <Zakim> ... platforms
22:00:27 <KJanowic> q+
22:00:34 <phila> phila: If we can't align SOSA with SSN that's a problem and I will raise a formal objection to further publications
22:00:40 <KJanowic> You are an editor of the same draft kerry!
22:01:00 <phila> kerry: We have the two being developed separately (paraphrase)
22:01:03 <KJanowic> Simon did lign them up
22:01:16 <phila> ... The problem is that we have two independent tracks
22:01:24 <KJanowic> q+
22:01:29 <SimonCox> 'No-one has attempted to line them up" is incorrect
22:01:39 <KJanowic> that if formally impossible, sorry to say that
22:01:43 <phila> ... to say that SSN should be a subclass isn't right, they should be identical
22:02:16 <KJanowic> there is an alignment by simon
22:02:16 <phila> ahaller2: There has been work on an alignment. There's a mapping table
22:02:32 <KJanowic> q+
22:02:38 <phila> ahaller2: We have not been able to discuss it in detail
22:02:48 <KJanowic> +1 to ahaller2
22:02:49 <kerry> q+
22:02:59 <phila> ... Not every class can be the same. In SOSA we have property paths that are different.
22:03:14 <phila> ... We don't have a system class in SOSA
22:03:15 <KJanowic> SOSA is broader that is the entire point. SSN is more specific
22:03:31 <phila> kerry: But there's no reason why SSN can't adopt those same things, it would be a mess
22:03:34 <KJanowic> q+
22:04:16 <phila> ahaller2: We're working through the issues, has Value, hasResult etc. We need a way to attach values in SSN
22:04:20 <kerry> q+
22:04:26 <phila> ... potentially the same way in SOSA
22:04:32 <SimonCox> But SOSA was not done indpendently - it was done by some of the same people who worked on SSN
22:04:38 <KJanowic> and this was due to the DUL issue, this has nothing to do wil SOSA
22:05:02 <phila> ahaller2: It doesn't help to say that the whole thing doesn't work, we should work through the issues one by one and we'll get there
22:05:12 <KJanowic> q+
22:05:26 <phila> ahaller2: So I would propose that we may need 2 hour SSN meetings in future
22:05:38 <phila> ... You already identified the issue of Platform
22:05:51 <DanhLePhuoc> +1 Armin: go over alignment issues, one by one
22:06:05 <phila> phila: No way can you have sosa:Platform and ssn:Platform meaning different things. One can subclass the other however.
22:06:29 <KJanowic> yes, phila and sosa:platofrm is simply a super class of ssn:platform
22:06:38 <phila> ahaller2: I don't think aligning SOSA and SSN is too difficult. We have a proposal.
22:06:54 <KJanowic> q+
22:06:55 <ClausStadler> If there is issues with short cut properties, prior w3c specifications kinda just threw them in, such as https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/#dfn-constant-shortcut-property
22:07:00 <phila> ... We work through the issues...
22:07:31 <phila> kerry: I can see that alignments do exit but I've obviously missed it, despite being here every week.
22:07:36 <KJanowic> q+
22:07:46 <phila> ahaller2: We haven't worked through the issues in the tracker yet
22:07:59 <phila> ... When we go through that issues, we'll end up with an alignment
22:08:01 <KJanowic> kerry, let me jump in here
22:08:01 <SimonCox> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/512
22:08:07 <KJanowic> I am on the queue
22:08:31 <KJanowic> come on kerry, you have not even seen the results you are objecting!
22:08:51 <SimonCox> and of course https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
22:09:02 <KJanowic> q+
22:09:04 <phila> kerry: So when we can say that all SSN classes are sub classes SOSA, I will not be happy
22:09:05 <KJanowic> they have to!
22:09:13 <KJanowic> this is imposssible!
22:09:22 <phila> kerry: SSN classes should be SOSA classes, we don't want another alignment.
22:09:26 <SimonCox> q?
22:09:31 <phila> q- kerry
22:09:35 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
22:09:48 <phila> KJanowic: Let's try to be constructive
22:11:05 <phila> ... we have multiple alignments. If we say that classes are equivalent... identical won't work.
22:11:14 <kerry> qI express strong disagrement -- please lee the discussion oin the email list
22:11:17 <phila> ... [more comments missed, sorry]
22:11:41 <phila> ahaller2: To finalise today...
22:11:59 <phila> ... We'll work on this alignment file and decide whether SSN imports SOSA etc.
22:12:15 <KJanowic> [Poining again to our own draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/images/modular_ontology.png]
22:12:15 <kerry> q+ to say that we have not agreed that an alignment is even needed -- that is a messy and uneccessary solution
22:12:25 <phila> ahaller2: We can discuss the current alignment but it doesn't make sense without going throug the issues
22:12:44 <phila> phila: I do not like work going on behind closed doors. We work in public.
22:12:52 <ahaller2> ack kerry
22:12:52 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to say that we have not agreed that an alignment is even needed -- that is a messy and uneccessary solution
22:13:15 <KJanowic> nothing is going behind close doors
22:13:31 <phila> kerry: I dob't like the idea of being presented with an alignment
22:13:41 <KJanowic> See github, see the mapping table
22:13:50 <phila> ahaller2: We had an alignment file from the start but there are issues so we didn't present it
22:14:13 <phila> ahaller2: I think we go through the issue tracker for the properties and classes
22:14:30 <phila> kerry: The issues on the tracker are not about rdfs:comment - they're more than that.
22:14:34 <phila> ahaller2: of course
22:14:47 <laurent_oz> Just a reminder that we did not know if the relationships were subclass or equivalentclass until very recently - the figures I have mande shows both options.
22:14:48 <phila> ahaller2: I think you raised all the issues in the tracker, we're working on them.
22:14:56 <phila> [Meeting adjourned]
22:15:05 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:15:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/24-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
22:15:06 <SimonCox> bye
22:15:10 <ahaller2> bye
22:15:12 <KJanowic> bye
22:15:13 <kerry> bye!
22:15:22 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:15:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/24-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
22:15:38 <phila> regrets+ SCott
22:35:37 <ahaller2_> ahaller2_ has joined #sdwssn
23:05:25 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has left #sdwssn
23:29:53 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn