19:51:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
19:51:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-irc
19:51:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:51:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
19:51:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:51:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
19:51:05 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:51:05 <trackbot> Date: 14 March 2017
19:51:16 <phila> s/Working/SSN Sub/
19:51:22 <phila> chair: Armin
19:51:53 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170314
19:52:18 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
19:52:55 <phila> regrets+ Scott
19:53:35 <phila> s/house/hour/
19:54:50 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
19:56:31 <KJanowic> KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
19:56:42 <tidoust> tidoust has joined #sdwssn
20:00:09 <roba> roba has joined #sdwssn
20:02:15 <roba> present+
20:02:59 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
20:03:16 <mlefranc> mlefranc has joined #sdwssn
20:03:34 <KJanowic> present+
20:03:51 <tidoust> Present+ Francois
20:04:05 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
20:05:24 <ahaller2> scribe: ahaller2
20:05:33 <ahaller2> scribenick: ahaller2
20:05:41 <ahaller2> topic: Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/03/07-sdwssn-minutes
20:05:50 <RaulGarciaCastro> present+ RaulGarciaCastro
20:05:54 <ahaller2> +1
20:05:55 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:05:57 <KJanowic> +1
20:06:01 <roba> +1
20:06:04 <tidoust> +1
20:06:08 <mlefranc> +1
20:06:19 <ahaller2> minutes approved
20:06:26 <ahaller2> topic: Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:06:34 <DanhLePhuoc_> DanhLePhuoc_ has joined #sdwssn
20:07:13 <ahaller2> topic: 1st hour - SSN, SSN+DULCE, SSN+SSNX
20:08:21 <ahaller2> topic: Forecasts and observations https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/82
20:09:14 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: Forecast is a long running issue already on the mailing list
20:09:36 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: Question: Should we cover Forecasting in SSN and if yes, how?
20:09:51 <KJanowic> q+
20:10:19 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: Domain Meteorology for example require forecasting, Chris, Simon are advocates for Forecasting
20:10:35 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: But we have time pressure for two implementations
20:10:36 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask KJanowic
20:10:40 <ahaller2> q?
20:10:42 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:10:43 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
20:11:11 <ahaller2> KJanowic: Good in theory, but it will require several new classes
20:11:44 <DanhLePhuoc_> q+
20:11:54 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask DanhLePhuoc
20:11:56 <ahaller2> KJanowic: For Forecasting to the best of my knowledge there are no reference implementation out there and that makes me concerned
20:12:19 <KJanowic> note that these are not just changes no property and class names, we do not know who will use the forcasting classes and whether we can get the implementations for this
20:12:55 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: It is not only Weather forecasting, but predicting other measurements, e.g. in traffic management, which means it will be difficult in terms of timing
20:12:59 <ahaller2> q+
20:13:08 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask DanhLePhuoc_
20:13:09 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc_
20:13:11 <mlefranc> q+
20:13:12 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask ahaller2
20:13:20 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
20:13:31 <tidoust> ack ahaller
20:14:02 <KJanowic> ahaller2: I am concerned about timing as well, maybe put it into a note?
20:14:17 <KJanowic> q+
20:14:18 <ahaller2> ack mlefranc
20:14:19 <mlefranc> talking about https://w3id.org/seas/ForecastingOntology
20:14:21 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask mlefranc
20:14:27 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:14:41 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
20:15:27 <SimonCox> present+
20:16:35 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:16:39 <ahaller2> maxime: Talks about the SEAS ontology and mentions that there are many new classes and properties. In the context of this group, we could just follow SimonCox's proposal on the list that if the phneomenonTime is after the ResultTime, it is a Forecast
20:16:44 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
20:18:05 <mlefranc> q+
20:18:07 <ahaller2> KJanowic: Forecasting changes the balance. The weakest part of SSN is the sensor network part, which it is named after. Keep in mind how long we take to discuss sometimes one concepts.
20:18:08 <KJanowic> Let us go back to the group and say it should go into a follow up of this group
20:18:12 <ahaller2> s/concepts/concept
20:18:15 <ahaller2> yes, proposal
20:18:30 <ahaller2> ahaller2+
20:18:36 <ahaller2> q+
20:18:43 <KJanowic> Danh, I would not even propose anything now, just say we cannot handle it for the current ssn
20:18:46 <ahaller2> ack mlefranc
20:18:50 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:18:54 <KJanowic> q+
20:19:17 <ahaller2> mlefranc: in favour of a vote on putting it into a note and add a frequently asked question in the main body
20:19:23 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
20:19:26 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
20:20:25 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:20:28 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
20:20:56 <mlefranc> q+
20:21:34 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:21:44 <ahaller2> KJanowic: concerned about the status of a note. If we are unsure we deliver quality, are we delivering a note?
20:21:49 <roba> why not just an informative section in the document - lots of vocabs have guidance notes
20:21:57 <ahaller2> q+
20:22:14 <roba> as maxime just said
20:23:21 <KJanowic> Keep in mind how the XG (!) work restricts our SSN work now. A note on forcasting will do more harm than we may anticipate if the model is not well worked out.
20:23:32 <mlefranc> q+
20:23:42 <KJanowic> q+
20:23:56 <ahaller2> ahaller2: thinks that non-normative is a stronger commitment than a note
20:24:00 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
20:24:04 <KJanowic> One more idea.
20:24:18 <ahaller2> tidoust: there is no difference between the two
20:24:20 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:24:58 <ahaller2> mlefranc: it could be a little note after the observation concept
20:25:08 <ahaller2> mlefranc: a few lines in the document could suffice
20:25:45 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:25:47 <ahaller2> tidoust: notes can be updated more easily, they are informative
20:26:50 <mlefranc> +1
20:26:55 <ahaller2> KJanowic: in the introduction we can talk about about forecasts, and point the user to existing attempts in doing forecasts such as mlefranc's work
20:26:58 <ahaller2> +1 for KJanowic
20:27:01 <ahaller2> q?
20:27:19 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask ahaller2
20:27:48 <roba> q+
20:28:03 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack roba
20:28:03 <KJanowic> not a note, a senstence in the intro
20:28:38 <KJanowic> agree roba, but this is why we would jointly work out a sentence based on maxime draftin 1-2 sentences
20:28:45 <ahaller2> roba: sloppy terminology. SSN does support forecasting, it does not name it forecasting. So we need to be clear what support means.
20:28:48 <mlefranc> q+
20:28:53 <KJanowic> s/draftin/drafting
20:28:56 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:29:51 <ahaller2> mlefranc: we can mention how to do the simple way of forecasting
20:29:56 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Forecasting will not be an explicit class and associated properties in the SSN document, but we include a note how forecasting can be modelled with existing properties
20:30:01 <KJanowic> lets not make ssn an ontology that covers everything.  lets point to maxime's work thereby acknowledging the need for forecasting and at the same time point to an example that does so using the ssn
20:30:06 <KJanowic> +1
20:30:10 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
20:30:13 <SimonCox> +1
20:30:16 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:30:16 <mlefranc> +1
20:30:18 <ahaller2> +1
20:30:18 <KJanowic> (if by note you mena sentence)
20:30:27 <KJanowic> s/mena/mean
20:30:28 <ahaller2> yes, note = sentences
20:30:31 <roba> +1
20:30:39 <ahaller2> q+
20:31:01 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has left #sdwssn
20:31:08 <SimonCox> There is a class="note" style in the W3C CSS which puts it in a nice box
20:31:08 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
20:31:11 <KJanowic> Can you assign an action to maxime (assuming maxime is okay with that)?
20:31:11 <ahaller2> RESOLVED: Forecasting will not be an explicit class and associated properties in the SSN document, but we include a note how forecasting can be modelled with existing properties
20:31:35 <DanhLePhuoc_> ACTION: mlefranc will draft a note on Forecasting to address ISSUE-82
20:31:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Will draft a note on forecasting to address issue-82 [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-03-21].
20:32:09 <KJanowic> When will we close 82?
20:32:12 <ahaller2> topic: The dul:includesEvent property has disappeared https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
20:32:45 <ahaller2> @KJanowic we can close the issue once mlefranc has implemented the action
20:33:28 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: issue raised by Raul, that by removing DUL we have no dul:includesEvent property anymore
20:33:31 <KJanowic> q+
20:33:37 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:33:41 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
20:34:35 <ahaller2> KJanowic: was questioning if DUL is a non-normative part
20:34:54 <ahaller2> ahaller2: yes, we had a resolution on DUL being a non-normative part
20:35:07 <KJanowic> Great!
20:35:16 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: Raul raised another issue with the DUL alignment
20:35:32 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
20:35:33 <ahaller2> @RaulGarciaCastro do you want to comment on this?
20:35:39 <DanhLePhuoc_> ask RaulGarciaCastro
20:35:40 <ahaller2> ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:35:43 <KJanowic> q+
20:36:02 <KJanowic> +1
20:36:19 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:36:19 <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: If we don't have DUL as non-normative, we need a term to link events
20:37:08 <ahaller2> KJanowic: if this removes the relation between Stimulus and Observation we need to introduce a relation and align it with the dul:includesEvent property
20:37:16 <ahaller2> +1 KJanowic
20:37:18 <RaulGarciaCastro> This is the proposal I wrote in teh issue tracker: “* To create in SSN the ssn:isStimulatedBy property between ssn:Observation and ssn:Stimulus.
20:37:19 <RaulGarciaCastro> * To state in the SSN-DUL alignment that ssn:isStimulatedBy is a subproperty of dul:includesEvent.”
20:37:36 <ahaller2> @RaulGarciaCastro action item for you?
20:37:37 <KJanowic> Yes, I can look into the Stimulus part. I agree with Raul that we need ssn-local relations
20:37:38 <RaulGarciaCastro> s/teh/the
20:38:52 <ahaller2> q?
20:39:03 <ahaller2> we vote after the solution is presented
20:39:17 <KJanowic> first the proposal then the vote :-)
20:39:36 <DanhLePhuoc_> PROPOSAL: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
20:39:42 <mlefranc> +1
20:39:43 <ahaller2> +1
20:39:44 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:39:46 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
20:39:48 <SimonCox> We also briefly discussed on the list the idea of a :stimulusTime property (which also helps tease out some of the details needed for forecasts, where the stimulus is some current and past observations)
20:39:50 <ahaller2> PROPOSAL: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
20:39:50 <ahaller2> 07:39 mlefranc
20:40:12 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
20:40:12 <roba> +1
20:40:21 <SimonCox> +1
20:40:25 <mlefranc> +1
20:40:25 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
20:40:31 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:40:31 <ahaller2> RESOLVED: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
20:40:33 <mlefranc> q+
20:40:36 <KJanowic> +1
20:40:43 <SimonCox> This is just a vote for Raul to do some more work?
20:40:48 <SimonCox> More like an ACTION
20:40:48 <mlefranc> yes
20:40:55 <DanhLePhuoc_> ACTION: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
20:40:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Propose a solution(adding some properties) resolve issue-117 [on Raúl García Castro - due 2017-03-21].
20:41:04 <ahaller2> q?
20:41:08 <ahaller2> ack mlefranc
20:41:12 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:41:36 <ahaller2> mlefranc: Simon had a proposal for a stimulusTime, can you outline that
20:41:55 <ahaller2> SimonCox: stimulustime will be before the present time, so it is a forecast.
20:42:01 <KJanowic> hmmm
20:42:03 <KJanowic> q+
20:42:09 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:42:32 <ahaller2> SimonCox: stimulustime will be the beginning of the observation, the resulttime at the end, the phenomenontime in between
20:42:54 <ahaller2> KJanowic: not sure about that, because the stimulustime may start the sensor in an implementation
20:43:01 <ahaller2> q?
20:44:15 <KJanowic> I like the idea but I would need to think more about it. The stimulus is the thing that you cannot yet talk about (in contrast to the observation)
20:44:26 <ahaller2> SimonCox: sometimes you don't know when the stimulus occurred, OWA. it makes activities sensing more like an event in the sense of an activity, with a start time and end time
20:44:45 <KJanowic> q+
20:45:07 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
20:45:11 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
20:46:26 <ahaller2> KJanowic: OWA is not an excuse for delaying the effort of modelling. Simply because it is not there, it is not wrong, but we should not give the OWA as an excuse for a lack of precision in the model
20:47:00 <KJanowic> q+
20:47:06 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic:
20:47:08 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: Antoine made a comment on the mailing list. Modelling is one thing, the implementer will make decisions on how it goes into the database.
20:47:12 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
20:47:38 <ahaller2> KJanowic: you will never model humans have three hands, but be ok with it, because only two go in the database
20:47:41 <ahaller2> q?
20:48:26 <ahaller2> topic: ssn:startTime and ssn:endTime https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/145
20:48:29 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
20:48:40 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:48:43 <ahaller2> ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:48:46 <RaulGarciaCastro> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/123
20:48:54 <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: more important than this issue is the related issue 123
20:49:27 <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: instead of a coherent set of properties for time, we currently have 6 different ways of attaching time
20:50:10 <ahaller2> q?
20:50:27 <mlefranc> q+
20:51:08 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:51:17 <ahaller2> KJanowic: SSN imports SOSA, so we should have a proposal to align all six
20:51:51 <ahaller2> mlefranc: going through the emails, also kerry agrees in deprecating the old terms and avoid introducing new terms in SSN new
20:52:16 <ahaller2> mlefranc: what are we do with the four remaining properties that are related to time
20:52:27 <ahaller2> mlefranc: delete start time and delete time
20:52:31 <KJanowic> I can look into this
20:52:39 <ahaller2> s/delete time/delete end time
20:53:03 <ahaller2> just raise action
20:53:18 <KJanowic> create action, no vote needed
20:53:27 <KJanowic> the vote will be on whatever the action results in
20:53:39 <DanhLePhuoc_> ACTION: KJanowic will address the ISSUES relevant for temporal properties in both SOSA/SSN
20:53:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Will address the issues relevant for temporal properties in both sosa/ssn [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-03-21].
20:53:58 <SimonCox> See https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/151 "Do we need :stimulusTime property for observation?"
20:54:25 <ahaller2> q?
20:54:27 <SimonCox> (new issue I just created)
20:54:39 <DanhLePhuoc_> Specgen doesn’t generate ssn:hasProperty and ssn:produces https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/105
20:54:46 <roba> Kjanowic: note QB4ST has a need to specify envelopes for dimensions, which may be temporal - would appreciate a review of that in light of your proposed solution.
20:54:53 <ahaller2> topic: Specgen doesn’t generate ssn:hasProperty and ssn:produces https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/105
20:54:59 <ahaller2> q+
20:55:02 <mlefranc> delay ?
20:55:11 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
20:55:13 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
20:55:17 <KJanowic> Thanks a lot roba, I will come back to you and simon wrt this.
20:56:31 <KJanowic> So how well does specgen really work for us?
20:57:21 <ahaller2> CLOSE ISSUE-105
20:57:21 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-105.
20:57:24 <mlefranc> we could use the generic tool https://ns.inria.fr/sparql-template/
20:57:36 <DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn with prov-o https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/53
20:57:37 <ahaller2> topic: Align ssn with prov-o https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/53
20:58:00 <mlefranc> q+
20:58:09 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
20:58:18 <ahaller2> ahaller2: proposed to not use specGen in the next iteration of the WD, but issue-105 was addressed
20:58:20 <ahaller2> q?
20:58:25 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
20:58:31 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
20:58:45 <KJanowic> Do we need an alignment to prov?
20:59:00 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
20:59:02 <KJanowic> q+
20:59:27 <DanhLePhuoc_> Ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:59:36 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: will PROV-O be in the normative part or non-normative part
20:59:42 <KJanowic> same here!
20:59:50 <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: question is if we need these alignments?
20:59:52 <ahaller2> q+
20:59:58 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:00:00 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
21:00:12 <mlefranc> q+
21:00:42 <ahaller2> KJanowic: we were picky about the sensor part, not do OBOE, but then PROV-O. That would be strange.
21:00:58 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
21:01:01 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
21:01:23 <KJanowic> then lets vote on this like we voted on OBOE
21:01:25 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller
21:01:49 <KJanowic> Agree with ahaller2
21:01:52 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
21:02:08 <ahaller2> ahaller2: agree with what was said before, and postpone the topic to next week
21:02:10 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
21:02:30 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
21:02:37 <ahaller2> mlefranc: alignments in non-normative parts of the document because they are W3C standards.
21:02:44 <ahaller2> q+
21:02:46 <DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn with rdf datacube https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/55
21:02:59 <KJanowic> q+
21:03:00 <roba> q+
21:03:05 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
21:03:18 <ahaller2> q-
21:03:43 <ahaller2> ahaller2: proposal to postpone the rdf datacube one until kerry is here
21:03:51 <ahaller2> topic: Align ssn with the ontology developed for the coverage deliverable https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/57
21:04:03 <ahaller2> q?
21:04:09 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:04:35 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/150 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_OBOE
21:04:35 <mlefranc> agree with jano
21:04:39 <ahaller2> KJanowic: understand mlefranc's argument that these are W3C rec's, but the argument earlier was made in regards to OBOE, that we just don't have time.
21:04:42 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack roba
21:04:47 <ahaller2> KJanowic: don't do things too hasty
21:05:13 <ahaller2> roba: not sure how much overlap there is between coverage and SSN WD
21:05:14 <SimonCox> Its not actually so hard.
21:05:25 <ahaller2> roba: QB4ST is just an early proposal
21:05:27 <mlefranc> q+
21:05:31 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack mlefranc
21:05:45 <KJanowic> I would like that
21:05:48 <ahaller2> maxime: will there be a follow up group?
21:05:56 <ahaller2> q+
21:06:02 <SimonCox> q+
21:06:09 <DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn to implement best practices as defined in our BP deliverable. https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/42
21:06:11 <roba> q+
21:06:28 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller2
21:06:30 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack ahaller
21:06:30 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:07:37 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack SimonCox
21:07:51 <ahaller2> ahaller2: there may be a follow up group, but even if not, we can still have a CG
21:07:58 <ahaller2> q?
21:08:20 <KJanowic> q+
21:08:38 <mlefranc> i don't think we voted against an oboe alignment
21:08:42 <KJanowic> which vote?
21:09:03 <KJanowic> we did not vote against the oboe alignment, correct?
21:09:23 <KJanowic> q+
21:09:40 <ahaller2> SimonCox: we have not voted on OBOE
21:09:53 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack roba
21:10:02 <ahaller2> ahaller2: There was no vote yet on OBOE not being part of the document
21:10:07 <KJanowic> IMHO, this is a misunderstanding. Can I address this briefly?
21:10:14 <ahaller2> q?
21:10:20 <DanhLePhuoc_> ack KJanowic
21:11:35 <ahaller2> KJanowic: OBOE alignment is important. Last time we had very picky discussions around OBOE. The argument that was brought up that we don't have time.
21:11:44 <ahaller2> scribe: DanhLePhuoc_
21:11:49 <ahaller2> scribenick: DanhLePhuoc_
21:11:58 <ahaller2> topic: Implementation of Platform resolution https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/275 and close of issue https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88
21:12:41 <KJanowic> q+
21:12:58 <DanhLePhuoc_> ahaller2: There is a proposal in wiki and today, we try to vote and close the issue
21:13:10 <mlefranc> +1 to close and raise new
21:13:42 <KJanowic> +1 to close 88
21:13:45 <DanhLePhuoc_> ahaller2: Kerry has some concerns, but Armin suggested Kerry to raises such concerns as issues
21:13:48 <ahaller2> q?
21:13:53 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:14:40 <ahaller2> KJanowic: the original claim was that SOSA platform and SSN platform are different, and we solved this specific issue very carefully
21:14:58 <ahaller2> KJanowic: if we don't clean up, and other issues that radiate out of it, we can't move on
21:14:59 <ahaller2> q?
21:15:28 <ahaller2> q?
21:15:42 <ahaller2> topic: Krzysztof Janowicz & Danh Le Phuoc reporting on progress on ACTION 278, ACTION 279, ACTION 280
21:16:00 <ahaller2> q?
21:16:12 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/278
21:16:19 <mlefranc> (can we close the action that was assigned to me ?)
21:16:31 <ahaller2> @mlefranc which one?
21:17:16 <mlefranc> @armin ow ok it was assigned to kerry. still action 270 should be closed
21:17:38 <ahaller2> close action-270
21:17:38 <trackbot> Closed action-270.
21:17:44 <KJanowic> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/618
21:18:32 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/279
21:19:02 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: still working on 279, only done locally
21:19:25 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/280
21:19:42 <KJanowic> q+
21:19:49 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:20:19 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: when my pull request is accepted, it will update the document
21:20:25 <ahaller2> topic: Discussion of options for the modelling of Processes/Procedures in SOSA and SSN as on the wiki at: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
21:20:46 <phila> phila has joined #sdwssn
21:20:52 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89
21:21:04 <DanhLePhuoc_> ahaller2: this item was raised a long time ago
21:21:37 <KJanowic> and because process means something else in sensorML (e.g., a sensor)
21:21:48 <KJanowic> q+
21:23:19 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:23:56 <ahaller2> KJanowic: some of those things have been resolved. Procedure is the like the cooking recipe, i.e. it is the workflow plan
21:24:17 <ahaller2> @DanhLePhuoc_ please don't forget to scribe
21:25:08 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: the Procedure in SOSA already address some features of the Process-related properties
21:25:27 <ahaller2> q?
21:26:20 <KJanowic> observation, sampling, actuation are events (processes). they all follow procedures, e.g., how to measure air temperature (not one specific but measuring air temperate in general)
21:26:22 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Rename Process in SSN to Procedure
21:26:25 <mlefranc> +1
21:26:27 <RaulGarciaCastro> Which of the 4 options in the wiki?
21:26:46 <phila> phila has joined #sdwssn
21:26:52 <KJanowic> +1
21:26:55 <ahaller2> +1
21:27:01 <RaulGarciaCastro> 0
21:27:01 <SimonCox> +1
21:27:03 <roba> +1
21:27:08 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
21:27:18 <ahaller2> RESOLVED: Rename Process in SSN to Procedure
21:29:52 <KJanowic> 3 has the subclassing 1 does not, right?
21:30:51 <KJanowic> q+
21:31:19 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:32:00 <mlefranc> q+
21:32:18 <ahaller2> ack mlefranc
21:32:35 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: Option 3 is more conservative but Option 1 is also ok
21:33:10 <ahaller2> q?
21:33:21 <KJanowic> but option 1 generates different entailment
21:33:22 <DanhLePhuoc_> mlefranc: Option 1 is simpler to understand
21:33:58 <KJanowic> ok, fine with me. I agree with maxime and ahaller
21:33:59 <ahaller2> q?
21:34:05 <DanhLePhuoc_> ahaller2: Note that we have owl:equivalentClass/Property in other classes as well
21:34:32 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
21:34:36 <mlefranc> +1
21:34:56 <ahaller2> +1
21:35:07 <KJanowic> +1 (as long as we revisit/change the actual code used on the wiki)
21:35:07 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
21:35:10 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
21:35:12 <roba> +1
21:35:25 <SimonCox> +1
21:35:54 <ahaller2> ahaller2: yes, code has changed since then and needs to be revisited
21:36:03 <ahaller2> RESOLVED: Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
21:36:20 <ahaller2> action: ahaller2 to implement Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
21:36:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Implement option 1: rename process to procedure as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/procedure_process [on Armin Haller - due 2017-03-21].
21:36:25 <ahaller2> q?
21:36:39 <ahaller2> topic: Discussion of Sampling https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Sampling ISSUE-92 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
21:36:42 <KJanowic> yay!
21:36:54 <phila> issue-92?
21:36:54 <trackbot> issue-92 -- Why do we need Sampling in the simple core? -- raised
21:36:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
21:36:55 <ahaller2> q?
21:37:04 <KJanowic> Note that this will also trigger: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/22d923b884d013cd72864f4bfabf350e71c770a0
21:39:04 <DanhLePhuoc_> SimonCox: Sample is involved in major cases on observations, especially in scientific publications
21:39:22 <KJanowic> q+
21:41:40 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:43:03 <ahaller2> q+
21:43:35 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
21:43:42 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:43:56 <KJanowic> my proposal: move fig 1 to sosa, fig2 to ssn. rename samplingactivity to sampling and samplingdevice to sampler (?)
21:44:06 <DanhLePhuoc_> q+
21:44:18 <mlefranc> q+
21:44:27 <ahaller2> ack RaulGarciaCastro
21:45:14 <KJanowic> imho, waterbodies are a great example why we should have more about samples in sosa
21:45:29 <KJanowic> we have this raul
21:45:48 <KJanowic> q+
21:46:00 <KJanowic> we did this already
21:46:21 <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: is Sample not a subclass of FeatureOfInterest
21:46:25 <roba> q+
21:46:25 <ahaller2> SimonCox: yes, could be
21:46:25 <KJanowic> Simon, we have this already
21:46:36 <KJanowic> we addressed this in december
21:46:41 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc_
21:47:05 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: Why is Sampling in the SOSA core?
21:47:22 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: in Schema.org they already have an IoT core
21:47:39 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: maybe makes SOSA more complicated
21:47:41 <ahaller2> q?
21:47:43 <DanhLePhuoc_> iot.schema.org
21:47:47 <ahaller2> ack mlefranc
21:47:47 <mlefranc> at first sight, sampling seems too similar to sensing or actuating
21:48:19 <KJanowic> iot.schema.org -- > does not work for me
21:48:25 <mlefranc> http://iot.webschemas.org/
21:48:31 <ahaller2> q?
21:48:34 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:49:04 <DanhLePhuoc_> mlefranc: Sampling might confuse the developer with measurement
21:49:20 <ahaller2> KJanowic: subclass relation should be part of SSN
21:49:43 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: Note that , we don't subclass in SOSA
21:50:00 <ahaller2> s/that , /that,
21:50:24 <ahaller2> q+
21:50:29 <ahaller2> ack roba
21:51:01 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: I agree with the argument to keep SOSA simple, but, I suggest to add 1-2 classes to address scientific data
21:51:19 <KJanowic> +1 to roba, makes sense to me
21:51:46 <RaulGarciaCastro> That’s it!
21:52:15 <KJanowic> we have the sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest for sosa and can add the subclass for ssn
21:52:28 <ahaller2> q?
21:52:35 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:52:59 <KJanowic> also keep in mind that in science you very, very often work with samples of samples. more specifically every time you use data from somebody else
21:53:16 <KJanowic> q+
21:53:59 <RaulGarciaCastro> KJanowic, That’s the good thing of having the subclass and the isSampleOf property from and to the FoI
21:54:12 <KJanowic> yes!
21:54:15 <DanhLePhuoc_> Armin: in terms of subclass, we have ruled out the using subclasses
21:54:29 <DanhLePhuoc_> q+
21:54:39 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:55:09 <mlefranc> +1
21:55:10 <ahaller2> Ahaller: culture heritage domain is using sampling quite extensively
21:55:13 <roba> +1
21:55:16 <ahaller2> q?
21:55:43 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SOSA core
21:55:49 <mlefranc> +1
21:55:49 <KJanowic> +1
21:55:54 <RaulGarciaCastro> -1
21:55:56 <SimonCox> +1
21:55:57 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: we should defer the discussion on how to it another, we should focus to voting whether to include Sampling in SOSA core
21:55:58 <ahaller2> +1
21:56:00 <roba> +1
21:56:10 <DanhLePhuoc_> 0
21:56:18 <KJanowic> q+
21:56:36 <KJanowic> I would disagree here
21:56:42 <KJanowic> we use sampling in IoT
21:56:48 <mlefranc> q+
21:57:08 <roba> Raul - with the right pattern, sampling looks the same - you can look at the data and work out its smapling..
21:57:12 <DanhLePhuoc_> RaulGarciaCastro: I prefer to see it in SSN
21:57:16 <ahaller2> q?
21:57:20 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc_
21:57:30 <KJanowic> but you would be okay, right? so we have a majority for inclusion.
21:57:49 <roba> q+
21:58:11 <SimonCox> SOSA also provides 'tags' for schema.org applications, not just WoT
21:58:11 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:58:53 <ahaller2> q?
21:59:20 <DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic: we do a lot of uses case here in the WoT, we use the Sampling the heavily
21:59:43 <ahaller2> zakim close queue
21:59:50 <ahaller2> zakim, close queue
21:59:50 <Zakim> ok, ahaller2, the speaker queue is closed
21:59:53 <ahaller2> q?
21:59:55 <RaulGarciaCastro> My -1 was just to force the discussion, I can live with the 0
22:00:03 <KJanowic> thanks!
22:00:05 <mlefranc> q-
22:00:17 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SSN
22:00:22 <mlefranc> +1
22:00:22 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
22:00:24 <ahaller2> +1
22:00:25 <DanhLePhuoc_> DanhLePhuoc_: I can live with it
22:00:27 <roba> -1
22:00:32 <KJanowic> +1 (if is is also in SOSA :-))
22:01:03 <KJanowic> I see roba's argument we had a positive vote on having it in SOSA
22:01:11 <KJanowic> +1
22:01:12 <SimonCox> +1 (by import from SOSA)
22:01:22 <KJanowic> +1
22:01:28 <ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SOSA
22:01:32 <KJanowic> Agree with roba
22:01:33 <KJanowic> +1
22:01:52 <ahaller2> +1
22:01:55 <RaulGarciaCastro> 0
22:01:58 <KJanowic> again, agree with roba
22:02:02 <DanhLePhuoc_> 0
22:02:08 <roba> +1
22:02:23 <mlefranc> +1
22:02:37 <SimonCox> +1
22:02:42 <ahaller2> RESOLVED: Include Sampling in SOSA
22:02:58 <ahaller2> action: simon to implement proposal on wiki in SOSA
22:02:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Implement proposal on wiki in sosa [on Simon Cox - due 2017-03-21].
22:03:03 <KJanowic> Thanks everybody for the very constructive 2 hours!
22:03:12 <ahaller2> q?
22:03:19 <ahaller2> ack roba
22:03:34 <RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
22:03:35 <KJanowic> bye bye
22:03:39 <roba> Bye
22:03:41 <ahaller2> bye
22:03:52 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:03:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
22:04:01 <ahaller2> RRSAgent, make logs public
22:04:15 <ahaller2> type RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:04:20 <ahaller2> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:04:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-minutes.html ahaller2
22:04:30 <mlefranc> mlefranc has left #sdwssn
22:05:09 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:05:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
22:35:23 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
22:51:47 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:20:43 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:34:31 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:43:34 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn