<eparsons> Good evening everyone !!

<eparsons> scribe: roba

<eparsons> scribenick: roba

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-minutes

<ahaller2_> +1

<eparsons> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<kerry> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<jtandy> +0 (I wrote them - hopefully correct)

+1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<eparsons> RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

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

BP Decisions for wider consideration

jtandy: reviews summaries of BP discusses as per email

<eparsons> Proposal: we shall we remove BP12 "Include search capability in your data

<eparsons> access API"

<jtandy> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

+1

<MattPerry> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<kerry> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<ahaller2_> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<eparsons> Resolved : we shall remove BP12 "Include search capability in your data

<eparsons> access API"

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<SimonCox> As long as there is a specific cross-reference ...

<eparsons> Proposal: we remove BP13 "Provide subsets for large spatial datasets" because DWBP already says enough?

<jtandy> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<LarsG> +1

<ahaller2_> +1

roba: notes QB4ST work is based on RDF-QB which provides mechanisms to describe subset relationships to data sets, but that this hasnt been fully explored for spatial case, and its emergent practice anyway, not BP.

+1

RESOLUTION: we remove BP13 "Provide subsets for large spatial datasets" because DWBP already says enough

@SimonCox can you minute your point and the response - i was following up request to minute my own comment :-(

<SimonCox_> Wanted to clarify that for this issue (subsetting) since we are delgating the BP to DWBP, we must be sure to retain an explicit cross-reference in the SDWBP document - it is important to give the guidance even if the details are elsewhere

<eparsons> Proposal: we remove BP2 "Provide context required to interpret data values"

<eparsons> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

+1

<kerry> +0

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<ahaller2_> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<LarsG> +1

<SimonCox_> My connection is clearly too slow

RESOLUTION: we remove BP2 "Provide context required to interpret data values"

<SimonCox_> ahaller2_: that would be _envious_

@ahaller2_ only because we agree not to go there...

<eparsons> +1 to non calculable relations / qualitative is needed

kerry: agrees qualitative relationship is needed - samePlaceAs wont be an established BP
... in common english "the same place" used, but dont carry geometry meanings

<ahaller2_> +1 to kerry

kerry: need to offer a solution - we have the power to solve this problem

ByronCinNZ: supporter of idea - not sure if its thought through enough...
... get problematic quite quickly - cites example of hotel moved location.,,
... its an emergent issue

<kerry> +1 to ed

eparsons: "place" is different from "location" - and this is useful - can we park it and move on

jtandy: lots of people us owl:sameAs badly - "tis' would be "less wrong"

kerry: samePlaceAs has correct social context, colocation is specific about geometry and not what we need

jtandy: will draft something for F2F discussion

<eparsons> Action jtandy to add to F2F agenda discussions of this issue

<trackbot> Created ACTION-281 - Add to f2f agenda discussions of this issue [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2017-03-15].

<eparsons> TOPIC : Upcoming F2F in Delft agenda bashing part 2

jtandy: monday is BP stuff only day jtandy can be present
... need to cover "open issues" - last sprint now! - all public comments need to be responded to
... planning, review UC, samePlaceAs

<ahaller2_> +1 for an early start on tuesday

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F6

<SimonCox> I'm the end of string in North Hobart

<eparsons> Need to provide list by 15th march - https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F6

<SimonCox> Engagement on Time has been limited - I warned about level of effort that could be expected when I took on editing. CHris has done even less.

<SimonCox> Has mostly been done by email.

<eparsons> simon do you need time at the F2F ?

Namespace for SOSA and SSN ontology Part 2.

<ahaller2_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Integration_Issue

ahaller2_: took on board feedback - wiki page authored options - still in discussion - votes in wiki - f2F topic

<ahaller2_> Option 1: If you care about that every term has the same namespace, but don’t mind that the stronger axiomatisation of a term may not be directly accessible in a linked data fashion you will like Option 1.

<ahaller2_> Option 2: If you like Option 1 and would want direct access to every term in a linked data fashion, but don’t mind that terms that are precised in SSN will get an additional namespace, you like Option 2.

<ahaller2_> Option 3: If you care about the global consistency of terms on the Web, but don’t mind that some instances of SOSA are not valid SSN instances you will like Option 3.

<ahaller2_> Option 4: If you care about a common namespace for SSN and SOSA and being able to access terms directly in a Linked Data fashion, but don’t mind to have three namespaces, one of which is the common namespace that only introduces terms (their labels) you will like Option 4.

<ahaller2_> Option 5: If you care about the same reuse mechanism of terms as in Option 1, but don’t mind to have two namespaces and that the stronger axiomatisation of a term may not be directly accessible in a linked data fashion you will like Option 5.

<ahaller2_> Option 6: If you like Option 2 and care about direct access to terms in a linked data fashion, but don’t mind having a common namespace at all, you will like Option 6.

<ahaller2_> Option 7: If you like Option 4, but don’t mind that the stronger axiomatisation of a term may not be directly accessible in a linked data fashion you will like Option 7.

<ahaller2_> Option 8: If you like Option 5 and you want to be able to access the stronger axiomatisation of a term in a linked data fashion, but don’t mind that SOSA imports an expressive OWL ontology, you will like Option 8.

roba: generally - number of options - because different concerns

<eparsons> kerry: doubts we have time for option 8

roba: scalability
... traversability
... server requirements

kerry: option 8 looks good but worried it may be harder to realise in time frame

ahaller2_: technical details not for the end user

eparsons: whats the decision making process

ahaller2_: in F2F - please join in
... and indicate pref on wiki

Timezone changes for the last time !

<SimonCox_> Panicked for a moment then that you needed some work on timezones in OWL-Time

<eparsons> https://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/2017a.html

<kerry> current time: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20170308T20&p1=1440&ah=1

<kerry> old time: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20170308T20&p1=1440&ah=1

<ahaller2_> thanks!

<LarsG> bye

<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

<jtandy> bye

<MattPerry> bye

<eparsons> thanks Roba

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: eparsons kerry roba ahaller2 ScottSimmons DanhLePhuoc ByronCinNZ LarsG RaulGarciaCastro jtandy MattPerry SimonCox SimonCox_
Regrets: Linda Clemens Payam Chris Andrea Sefki Francois Bill Rachel
Found Scribe: roba
Found ScribeNick: roba
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201700208
Found Date: 08 Mar 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/03/08-sdw-minutes.html
People with action items: