21:03:02 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 21:03:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-irc 21:03:05 present+ 21:03:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 21:03:19 present+ ahaller2 21:03:44 Present+ Kjanowic, SimonCox, ScottSimmons, kerry, phila, Joshlieberman 21:03:47 Present+ Francois 21:04:23 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference 21:04:34 Chair: Armin 21:05:04 scribe: sefkikolozali 21:05:07 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 21:05:11 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0188.html 21:05:42 topic: patent call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 21:06:49 topic: SOSA/SSN vertical integration architecture https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017 21:06:57 [at least for me your voice is breaking away] 21:06:58 armin: please let us know if you have any copyright infringement. 21:07:04 Present+ DanhLePhuoc 21:07:09 RRSagent, draft minutes 21:07:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust 21:07:55 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 21:10:36 Took me two tries to get WebEx audio but now works. 21:11:49 Kjanowic_ has joined #sdwssn 21:12:09 Kerry - can you use the phoneline instead? Or by phone use +1-617-324-0000 US Toll Number, Access code 646 798 081 21:12:17 Armin: we are going to go through the Kerry's proposal. 21:13:08 present+ 21:14:33 and this is problematic 21:14:46 q+ 21:15:17 +1 21:15:17 +1 21:15:26 armin: everyone agrees we have two uri two ontology files 21:15:30 q? 21:15:35 +1 21:15:38 +1 21:15:38 objection! 21:15:46 I cannot hear the discussion as you know 21:15:59 PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different namespaces 21:16:03 and i do not know anything about a resolution that just appeared on the irc 21:16:03 +1 21:16:07 +1 21:16:10 I canot agree 21:16:12 -1 21:16:17 +1 21:16:40 roba: two different namespaces are not the same as two different URIs 21:16:42 We have "he namespace for SSN terms is http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/" and "The namespace for SOSA terms is http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/" 21:16:59 Can we use the queue please? 21:17:07 q+ 21:17:09 q? 21:17:18 q? 21:17:24 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 21:17:34 q+ 21:17:37 q- 21:17:45 q+ 21:17:48 q+ SimonCox 21:17:50 q+ 21:17:56 ack s 21:18:03 two ontologies IRIs may reusee the same namespace (which has a RI which may or may not be an ontology IRI as well) 21:19:02 +1 to SimonCox 21:19:04 I agree with SimonCox 21:19:05 Simon, did you just ordain us? 21:19:08 q? 21:19:09 q+ 21:19:19 simon: the comment that rob and josh has been making is strictly correct. The URIs and namespaces are strictly independent from each other. We should take into account the users for namespaces and URI decision 21:19:31 i agree also - i think this is the key issue 21:20:04 We have "he namespace for SSN terms is http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/" and "The namespace for SOSA terms is http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/" 21:20:14 [I have baby music in the background, sorry for that] 21:20:25 are we voting on the state of the draft or the principle? 21:20:36 the principle 21:20:40 PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different IRIs and two different ontology namespaces 21:20:44 +1 21:20:47 +1 21:20:51 +1 21:20:54 +1 21:20:57 +1 21:21:05 q+ 21:21:07 q+ 21:21:19 ack Kjanowic_ 21:21:29 +1 21:21:36 -1 21:22:00 ack roba 21:22:23 q+ 21:22:45 q+ 21:22:46 roba: whether sin itself needs to have a different namespace or a separate ontology file is a separate issue. this issue is about files: packaging. 21:23:13 I would have to disagree 21:23:22 PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different IRIs 21:23:29 +1 21:23:30 New issue: do terms defined in the SOSA ontology have a different namespace than the terms defined in the SSN namespace 21:23:34 roba: can we separate the questions to having to different ontologies with two different IRIs. 21:23:39 q+ 21:23:42 -1 21:23:46 q+ 21:24:02 kerry on wiki: Core ssn and extended ssn are presented as different ontologies - in dfferent files with different ontology iris 21:24:16 q? 21:24:21 Correction: roba asked do terms defined in the SOSA ontology have a different namespace than the terms defined in the SSN ontology 21:25:54 Kjanowic_: asks if SSN will import SOSA and re-use the SOSA URIs where they overlap with the SSN concepts. 21:25:55 q+ 21:26:03 q+ to say that these issues cannot be determinedin isolation. If this forces us into a position where we have to say that ssn:Sensor rdfs:subclassof sosa:Sensor then that is really bad. I am no frog. 21:26:29 q+ 21:26:32 no, we do 21:26:37 q? 21:26:41 kerry: no-one is proposing ssn:Sensor rdfs:subclassof sosa:Sensor - please look at the work I posted in the last week. 21:26:41 ack Kjanowic_ 21:26:43 q+ 21:26:49 ack jo 21:26:51 agree with jano - and armin - these are follow-on issues that we can address once principles are ticked off one by one 21:27:45 Joshlieberman: rdfs:isDefinedBy is not the membership predicate for ontologies 21:27:54 q- 21:27:57 q+ 21:28:02 it is a common convention but not universal and not an axiom 21:28:29 [but we aready voted on that] 21:28:32 Joshlieberman just said what I wanted to say only more clearly than I would have. 21:28:34 roba: we can use the ontology membership for classes, sosa classes belong to sosa and ssn classes. however, restriction are difficult to make for certain ontology. they are only group of a file. therefore, as a hint having different namespace c could help to separate. we still have to be careful so that when we make separation. 21:28:40 agree with Josh - we may need three files: SOSA, SOSA formal axioms and SSN refinements 21:29:00 q? 21:29:09 ack roba 21:29:09 ack ro 21:29:16 Yes, what does this do to our previous vote? 21:30:21 q? 21:30:41 ack kerry 21:30:41 kerry, you wanted to say that these issues cannot be determinedin isolation. If this forces us into a position where we have to say that ssn:Sensor rdfs:subclassof sosa:Sensor then 21:30:42 1). Two ontology IRI's? - yes. 2) two namespaces? Maybe. 3) how to segregate axioms? Not sure 21:30:44 ... that is really bad. I am no frog. 21:30:45 I cannot hear a thing and very little is going into irc, I am afraid. 21:30:52 armin: we have two different files and two IRIs. we could separate the question. 21:31:01 q+ 21:31:14 soory -- am i acked or not? 21:31:49 armin is reading Kerry's comments. 21:31:54 I wanted to say that these are not issues that can be determined in isolation 21:32:04 q? 21:32:08 It looks a lot like boiling frogs to me 21:32:09 ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn 21:32:09 ack SimonCox 21:32:11 I have to disagree 21:32:19 present+ ClausStadler 21:32:58 for example, a combination of bits and peices in this issue have ssn (ontology) importing sosa (ontlogy) 21:33:25 and uing sosa terms (namespace) and havinh ssn (ontology) 21:33:41 q+ to talk about DC, DCAT and DCAT-AP 21:34:02 having to include an axiom like ssn:Senor rdfsSubcallsof sosa:Sensor 21:34:15 this makes ssn unusable and simply stupid. 21:34:21 +1 to simonCox 21:34:59 yes and no 21:35:05 agree - simon has show we dont need subclasses (+1_ - so the issue is naming preferences for SSN narrower cases ? 21:35:07 What Simon said made sense to me 21:35:22 Simon: my preference is to keep sosa as lightweight, and have a separate IRI. 21:35:25 q+ 21:35:35 not really 21:35:40 ahaller2: Having separate files and namespaces doesn't itself imply subclassing etc. 21:35:46 ack Kjanowic_ 21:35:47 ack kj 21:35:47 Simon's summary: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/517 21:35:51 q+ to say i have no idea what simon siad but that I saw this stement in simon's work on git hunb about 24 hours ago which is the last time I looked 21:36:25 i thought we refined the proposal 21:36:41 so we didnt conflate namespaces 21:37:30 q+ 21:37:32 q+ 21:38:01 this is not a problem if SSN is providing axioms based on SOSA definitions - not "extending" 21:38:16 Q+ 21:38:24 q+ 21:38:24 +1 roba 21:38:52 q? 21:38:55 ack phila 21:38:55 phila, you wanted to talk about DC, DCAT and DCAT-AP 21:38:58 armin - not "two" - "separate" - maybe we'll decide on three.... 21:39:20 roba: yes, sorry, not "two", "different" 21:39:35 q+ to sak whther sosa is a core for ssn and a module of ssn or whther it is an independent ontology? 21:39:48 s/ak/ask/ 21:39:54 s/sak/ask/ 21:40:34 Trying to separate 3 issues. Third is how to segregate SSN axiom from Sosa vocabulary without subclasses. Only different files and or separate namespaces can suggest that the axioms should not be applied to Sosa. No part of OWL enforces that. 21:41:03 yes, exactly +1 to what phila is saying 21:41:16 q+ 21:41:54 yes + 1 = SOSA, SOSA OWL axioms _ SSN aplication profile is exaclty the pattern I was envisoning in the original vertical mod discussion 21:42:08 +1 (YES!) 21:42:39 q? 21:42:46 ack kerry 21:42:46 kerry, you wanted to say i have no idea what simon siad but that I saw this stement in simon's work on git hunb about 24 hours ago which is the last time I looked and to sak whther 21:42:49 ... sosa is a core for ssn and a module of ssn or whther it is an independent ontology? 21:42:53 This is due to the semantics of owl, this is not about what we like but what the W3C sepcs state. So yes +1 to phila 21:43:46 q+ 21:43:46 q? 21:43:50 ack roba 21:44:28 q+ to wonder what happened to me on the q 21:44:33 ack SimonCox 21:45:20 +1 to SimonCox 21:45:59 IMHO 3 files are really overdoing it. I see the idiea but this will be too complicated 21:46:10 simon: two possible patterns to be used in ssn and sosa. one is subclass, other one is adding axiomization.and constraints to sosa. 21:46:36 * sorry, must leave early 21:46:41 Yes!!! 21:46:56 q? 21:46:59 i think it looks like it will be easier to have three files and be clear about them - both for design and usage, than conflate concerns in single files.. 21:46:59 ack Joshlieberman 21:47:07 2 possible patterns: 1. subclass to add restrictions, if they are inconsistent with the original definitions 2. merely add axioms to the sosa class, provided they are not inconsistent with the original text definitions 21:47:33 so please can we vote on josh's first sentence? 21:47:46 q+ 21:47:56 Yes, Josh is right! 21:48:24 q+ tpo point out that however this is done we cannot accept that sosa is some untouchable thing --- there are many outstanding issues with sosa and getting the architecture rifght can well affect every term 21:48:33 clear - and consistent with the three layer pattern IMHO 21:48:46 q+ 21:48:50 q? 21:48:53 ack Kjanowic_ 21:50:28 can we have principle 2: axioms added to classes in a reused namespace must be completely consistent with the imported text definitions (and any imported axioms) 21:50:43 so lets vote 21:50:59 q+ to nuance that 21:51:06 ack kerry 21:51:06 kerry, you wanted to wonder what happened to me on the q and to nuance that 21:51:08 Can we vote on 2+ files, 2+ namespaces, and 2+ IRIs? 21:51:20 do i have the floor/ 21:51:23 ? 21:51:24 yes 21:51:28 thasnks 21:51:48 I cannot follow, i am afraid, therefore I am unwilling to be pushed into a vote I do not understand 21:52:13 However, can I ask whther anybody looked at the proposal with worked example that I placed on the wiuki sa few days ago? 21:52:19 2+ files, 2+ IRIs -> and only need different namespaces if we need subclasses with different set membership 21:52:50 there bein no answer I take that as no.... 21:53:13 kerry: can you give link please 21:53:20 so can I please urge people to look at ti and coment 21:53:25 @kerry: yes we looked, not yet at that stage in the discussion 21:53:28 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017 21:53:32 q? 21:53:34 kerry - i looked at it ;-) 21:53:36 ack SimonCox 21:53:39 It is the first time a comprehensive pattern has been proposed with a worked example 21:53:40 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017 21:53:41 q- 21:53:51 kerry - me too 21:53:56 PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs 21:53:59 Ii know rob did a good job summarising an alternative pattern also on the mailing list 21:54:06 +1 21:54:07 +1 21:54:09 +1 21:54:10 +1 for PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs 21:54:11 +1 21:54:16 +1 21:54:16 but frnakly i see lots of bits of issues but cno comprehensive pattern with examples 21:54:25 +1 21:54:40 would it be possibe for an alternative (complete) pattern to be descibed and supported by examples on the wiki/ 21:54:42 ? 21:54:43 @kerry, yes we do not have a resolution on how we do the integration 21:54:43 o 21:55:03 q+ to answer armin 21:55:30 RESOLVED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs 21:55:37 PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate ontology files 21:55:41 kerry: your proposal looks basically sound to me. You can use my tables as an inventory to complete. 21:55:41 +1 21:55:41 -1 21:55:42 -1 21:55:46 when was the vote? 21:55:46 -1 21:55:47 +1 21:55:49 +1 21:55:51 +1 21:55:55 +1 21:56:17 kerry: why? 21:56:32 I don't know what I am voting on 21:56:41 kerry - this was your first principle - we've just been decluttering its assumptions and conflated issues :-) 21:56:46 on two seperate ontology files, msg: 8:55 21:56:49 +1 21:56:51 I see a resolution that I did not vote one 21:57:07 -1 21:57:09 kerry you voted o 21:57:17 pardon? 21:57:33 do you mean "o" 21:57:38 08:54 kerry: o 21:57:39 kerry: your proposal looks basically sound to me, particularly the section headed "ssn fragment, assuming ssn imports sosa". You can use my tables as an inventory to complete. 21:57:47 i did type an "o" but it was not "0" 21:57:58 and was not in response to any vote 21:58:10 that is good enough for a resolution, everyone else +1 21:58:12 to me it seems reasonable having these things separated in different files, but i since i missed the discussions over the past week i can't do a educated vote 21:58:17 -1 21:58:19 @simoncox: as long as we do not have axioms of the type sosa:xyz [something] ssn:xyz 21:58:20 I voted -1 every time 21:58:28 FROMAL OBJECTION 21:58:58 @kerry: formal objection to seperate IRIs? 21:59:26 formal objection to having been undersoot to vote anything other thn -1 21:59:39 please , it would help if i knew what vote we had? 21:59:55 is it the "resoved" that was types into the irc? 22:00:23 As you know, I cannot hear 22:00:27 I am relying on the irc 22:00:29 q+ 22:00:51 do i have the floor please? 22:01:18 Is that yes? 22:01:29 @kerry we are listening to Francois 22:01:35 Then I want to make it very clear that every vote I have placed in this meeeting is a -1 22:01:36 Yes. There were two proposals: whether to have separate ontology IRI's and whether to have separate ontology files. 22:01:48 I want to make that very clear not becuase I am a pedantic, but becuase 22:01:55 We have not voted on separate namespaces. 22:02:07 Iit seems it has been assumed that I have voted in favour of something (not sure what) 22:02:32 so... have we voted on something? 22:03:01 has something been resolved? 22:03:12 no, nothing resolved, because of your objection 22:03:12 I replied to You, kerry. Can you see the IRC. 22:03:18 i agree we dont have a disagreement - just got the voting process too hard to follow on irc alone :-( 22:03:52 kerry hasnt actually intended to vote -1 for everything - just how we interpreted her irc shorthand... 22:04:13 why not PROPOSED: SOSA elements have their own namespace. SSN elements use a different namespace, except where they re-use elements imported from other ontologies, including SOSA 22:04:27 PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate ontology files 22:04:30 please vote 22:04:33 +1 22:04:36 +1 22:04:37 +1\ 22:04:40 +1 22:04:41 Simon , please speak up 22:04:42 +1 22:04:43 +1 22:04:45 +1 22:04:48 +1 22:04:51 q+ 22:05:00 ack kerry 22:05:00 kerry, you wanted to answer armin 22:05:07 q- 22:05:14 @kerry we do not have a resolution on either of the two 22:05:26 it is just to document in the minutes 22:05:36 ok, then can you please ensure this above is removed from the minutes "RESOLVED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs" 22:05:38 ack SimonCox 22:06:39 This is good https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#ssn_fragment.2C_assuming_ssn_imports_sosa 22:08:02 Why haven't we been able to move forward? 22:08:08 q+ 22:08:16 It is also largely consisten with my proposals in the last week 22:08:40 to appreciate that simon has looked at the proposal 22:08:51 Q? 22:08:56 ack kerry 22:09:00 Violent near-agreement and on that note, bye 22:09:04 and also to say that Krz has expressed strong objectnions (I am not sure he read it though) 22:09:19 I did 22:09:19 Joshlieberman has left #sdwssn 22:09:29 (I understand K's objections though) 22:09:32 I s the meeting still going? 22:09:36 bye 22:09:37 Bye! 22:09:42 @kerry, no just closed 22:09:45 yes, because owl does not function that way 22:09:46 ta 22:09:48 bye. 22:09:51 bye 22:09:54 i think we havent actually disagreed with the content - just couldnt get the process working smoothly :-( 22:10:19 Make sure to capture minutes ... 22:10:30 UNRESOLVED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs 22:10:57 RRSAgent, make logs public 22:11:11 type RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:11:24 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:11:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust 22:50:30 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 23:03:43 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 23:08:37 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 23:54:44 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn