19:48:57 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 19:48:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-irc 19:48:59 RRSAgent, make logs world 19:48:59 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 19:49:01 Zakim, this will be SDW 19:49:01 ok, trackbot 19:49:02 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 19:49:02 Date: 04 April 2017 19:49:13 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170404 19:59:55 phila has joined #sdwssn 20:00:07 kerry has joined #sdwssn 20:00:44 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn 20:01:27 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 20:02:00 trackbot, start meeting 20:02:03 RRSAgent, make logs world 20:02:06 Zakim, this will be SDW 20:02:06 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 20:02:06 Date: 04 April 2017 20:02:06 ok, trackbot 20:02:59 Present+ Francois 20:03:02 s/Working/SSN Task Force/ 20:03:10 present+ 20:03:11 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 20:03:41 KJanowic has joined #sdwssn 20:03:44 present+ ahaller2 20:04:36 SimonCox has joined #sdwssn 20:04:43 scribe: kerry 20:04:50 scribenick: kerry 20:04:58 present+ DanhLePhuoc 20:05:14 present+ 20:05:59 present+ 20:06:38 mlefranc has joined #sdwssn 20:06:59 present+ 20:07:29 present+ 20:07:41 topic: Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-sdwssn-minutes 20:07:50 +1 20:07:53 -1 20:07:53 +1 20:07:55 +1 20:07:56 +1 20:07:56 +1 20:08:12 +1 20:08:39 please add regrets for kerry to minutes 20:08:40 +1 20:08:53 phila: I can do it 20:08:58 +1 20:09:02 topic: Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 20:09:30 topic: Progress on issue ISSUE-111, replace isStimulatedBy by wasOriginatedBy 20:09:42 s/111/117/ 20:09:45 ChrisLittle has joined #SDWssn 20:09:45 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117 20:09:55 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/111 20:10:04 issue-117? 20:10:04 issue-117 -- The dul:includesEvent property has disapeared -- open 20:10:04 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117 20:10:09 present+ ChrisLittle 20:10:11 ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn 20:10:19 present+ ClausStadler 20:10:25 * no audio, just lurking 20:10:30 [Minutes from last week amended to show Kerry's regrets, originally given at https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170328] 20:10:33 armin invites raul to speak 20:10:44 raul: at end of page can see implementation 20:11:01 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170404 20:11:05 chair: Armin 20:11:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 20:11:28 ... new prop was isStimulatedBy 20:11:31 q? 20:11:38 armin: can we close the issue? questions? 20:11:53 close issue-117 20:11:53 Closed issue-117. 20:12:05 issue-111? 20:12:05 issue-111 -- SOSA/SSN mapping to O&M needed -- raised 20:12:05 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/111 20:12:12 topic: Progress on ACTION 295 to propose implementation options for Option 2 on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌Measurement_and_Operating_properties_for_actuators 20:12:20 action-295? 20:12:20 action-295 -- Maxime Lefrançois to And kjanowic to propose implementation options for option 2 on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/measurement_and_operating_properties_for_actuators -- due 2017-04-04 -- OPEN 20:12:20 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/295 20:12:29 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Measurement_and_Operating_properties_for_actuators 20:12:34 Topic: Action-295 20:12:40 q+ 20:12:44 armin: maxime or krz to speak on this? 20:12:47 ack mlefranc 20:13:11 maxime: the main issue is properties that can also apply to actuators (Measurement props) 20:13:21 three options (too fast) discussed last week 20:13:32 ...worked on implementing option 2 20:13:45 Maxime did all the work on this so far so I leave it to him to introduce the changes 20:13:52 maxime: measurementX becomes systemX 20:14:19 ...you can see I tried to rewrite most of the defs so they now apply to system 20:14:47 ... would like to introduce repeatability for actuators 20:15:15 ... [not keeping up] 20:15:30 ...old classes and props would become sub- of these new ones. 20:15:37 q? 20:15:57 armin: looks good to me 20:16:01 also good for me 20:16:01 ...what do others thing? 20:16:03 q? 20:16:23 q+ 20:16:28 I did not really have time to look into this in detail as they were pubished yesterday but it looks good to me 20:16:32 ack mlefranc 20:16:32 q+ 20:16:46 ack KJanowic 20:17:10 k: has not looked at it, agrees do an implementation 20:17:45 ahaller2: giving an anction item 20:17:47 action: maxime to implement the changes proposed in https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Measurement_and_Operating_properties_for_actuators in ssn 20:17:47 Created ACTION-301 - Implement the changes proposed in https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/measurement_and_operating_properties_for_actuators in ssn [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-04-11]. 20:17:49 q+ 20:17:57 ack mlefranc 20:18:01 s/k:/kJanowic/ 20:18:08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0233.html 20:18:19 mlefranc: draw attention to issue 20:18:54 ...measurement range has moved so now way systems linked to capabilities now duplicated --- but called Xrange 20:19:17 ...so we have a structure for measurement propoerties and measurement range 20:19:25 ...[not keeping up] 20:19:30 ...asking for opinion 20:19:34 q? 20:20:17 ahaller2: anyone recall why this is so? 20:20:46 mlefranc: suggest deprecate previous measurement range 20:21:01 ... or rename 20:21:07 ...i prefer the former 20:21:14 ahaller2: agrees 20:21:20 q+ 20:21:27 ack kerry 20:21:55 kerry: For the previous topic and this one, I can't keep up with adding various links to the IRC 20:22:38 kerry: If people don't have time to comment, maybe the option is to do nothing. 20:22:49 ahaller2: have been talking for past meetings 20:22:50 ahaller2: It's not a new issue, we've been talking about it for the last 2 meetings 20:23:04 q? 20:23:10 ahaller2: Comments on the pull requests usually works wewll 20:23:20 s/wew/we/ 20:23:27 ahaller2: any other comments? 20:23:53 q? 20:23:56 ...please maxime indicate which issue in PR -- do 2 PRs 20:24:05 topic: Progress on https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/296 to look into https://www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌track/‌issues/‌153 and propose a solution 20:24:37 q? 20:24:51 ahaller2: krz what did you do here? 20:24:53 issue-296 20:24:53 Sorry, but issue-296 does not exist. 20:25:02 action-296 20:25:02 action-296 -- Krzysztof Janowicz to Look into https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/153 and propose a solution -- due 2017-04-04 -- OPEN 20:25:02 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/296 20:25:08 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/153 20:25:09 issue-153 20:25:09 issue-153 -- reconsider role of device in ssn as a result of the changes to platform required for sosa -- raised 20:25:09 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/153 20:25:20 KJanowic: link broken -- if about putting in writing not done yet, only changed source code 20:25:51 ahaller2: [missed] around changes to sensing devices and device class 20:26:30 Okay sorry, I have no updates on this for this week. 20:26:32 ...around sensingdevice -- action was to look at old class and deal wit hthat sensors and actuators can now attach to platofrms directly 20:26:38 ...was an email sent 20:26:43 q? 20:27:04 KJanowic: i will do this next week 20:27:17 q? 20:27:37 ahaller2: i will change date on action item 20:28:06 topic: Progress on ACTION-298 to send an email to the list to list classes/properties in SSN from the "integrated" directory that we have not discussed yet 20:28:19 action-298 20:28:19 action-298 -- Maxime Lefrançois to Send an email to the list to list classes/properties in ssn from the "integrated" directory that we have not discussed yet -- due 2017-04-04 -- OPEN 20:28:19 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/298 20:28:31 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Terms 20:28:50 ahaller2: maxime sent an email and made a wiki page 20:29:02 q+ 20:29:17 mlefranc: i posted the link - you can see i split the old ssn terms into little "modules" and 20:29:17 close action-298 20:29:17 Closed action-298. 20:29:39 ... the third col is the new term in the lite vs the full ontology 20:29:53 ... if we agree on all the axioms and naming and alignment ... 20:30:01 ...ot all finished yet. 20:30:11 .... at the right we can put comments if needed 20:30:21 ....we should go through them quickly 20:30:55 ahaller2: has anyone looked? some of this is still open issues and many are terms we have not yet discussed 20:31:18 ... could be left unchanged unless there is n issue 20:31:32 ... maybe if we cannot find implementations we could deprectate 20:31:37 q+ 20:31:44 ack KJanowic 20:31:44 ... maybe just there is nothing wrong with the status quo 20:32:10 KJanowic: i already worte something 2 hours ago -- I am surprised about sensing 20:32:18 q+ 20:32:29 ..old ssn distinguished sensing (process) from observation -- the latter is the setting or context 20:32:53 ... in a f2f we agrred that observation should be an activity 20:32:59 ...so we don't need sensing any more 20:33:07 q? 20:33:29 ahaller2: propose to deprecate sensing? 20:33:47 KJanowic: yes 20:33:47 ack mlefranc 20:34:22 "Sensing is a process that results in the estimation, or calculation, of the value of a phenomenon." 20:34:25 q+ 20:34:35 mlefranc: i disagree -- the old process class has been renamed procedure and the old sensing class was a subclass, so not the actof but now a procedure that results in the [missed] 20:34:51 That would not work as procedure means something slightly different 20:34:52 ... could rename sesning as sensingprocedure 20:35:01 ... could also have actuatingprocuedure 20:35:02 q? 20:35:02 q+ 20:35:06 ack KJanowic 20:35:31 KJanowic: this is more complicated becuase one procedure for several observations 20:35:47 definition: Sensing is a procedure that results in the estimation, or calculation, of the value of a phenomenon. 20:36:00 the sensing is the act of carryin out -- the actual thing each time 20:36:08 ... i would simply deprecate 20:36:10 q? 20:36:14 ack kerry 20:36:56 s/carryin/carrying 20:37:08 we can deprecated sensing 20:37:16 kerry: I'm confused... I wasn't keeping up fully with that conversation. I don't think anyone has replaced observation with sensing... 20:37:19 that is what I proposed 20:37:25 q+ 20:37:33 ... I can't see that it's disappeared but I may not be keeping up 20:37:41 q+ 20:37:45 ... The change of procedure to process I lost track of 20:37:45 q+ 20:37:54 ack KJanowic 20:38:24 q- want to let simon speak 20:38:28 q- 20:38:31 KJanowic: so observation is the act 20:38:41 ... to translate stimulus to a result 20:38:49 ... which is different to a social construct 20:38:54 q- 20:39:04 ... like a nexus (as neon and dulce would do it) 20:39:18 ... we don't need to use the sensing any more 20:39:33 ... so i would deprecate the sensing class 20:39:52 observation is now the act of carrying out the activity that the snesor performs to translate the stimulus to a result 20:39:56 q? 20:39:57 ahaller2: makes sense 20:40:03 * kerry, mute yourself please :-) 20:40:16 [please mute yourself when you type :-)] 20:40:23 q+ 20:40:39 ahaller2: action item? alternative is to intro a similar class for actuation pattern 20:40:47 ack KJanowic 20:41:09 .... what you just said about stimulus is more complicated 20:41:24 ... per definition of stimulus you canot have implementations of that 20:41:25 q? 20:41:42 q+ 20:41:44 ahaller2: propose issue a pr 20:41:50 ack mlefranc 20:41:59 The 'stimulus' is the thing that triggers a sensor, therefore it has no instances. It is part of the ontological modelleing framework 20:42:03 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=Sensing_and_Actuating&action=edit&redlink=1 20:42:08 mlefranc: there are some claer options -- a Pr is a bit too quick 20:42:09 s/modelleing/modeling 20:42:21 Okay, I can do so 20:42:24 ... suggest a new page "sensing and actuating" is already there 20:42:30 q+ 20:42:43 but this is not covered by the term 'observation' 20:42:49 ... to me you can instantiate sensing and do some cooking to make an observation. 20:42:50 ack KJanowic 20:43:14 Note I introduced a 'SensingProcedure' class in the O&M alignment 20:43:16 KJanowic: please lay at options and explain rationale - a bit too early for pr -- deprecating will be the easist 20:43:54 ahaller2: can deprecate or rename or make it like actuation -- please lay out options on wiki 20:43:55 'SensingProcedure' is a sub-class of Procedure 20:44:18 also SamplingProcedure and ActuationProcedure 20:44:29 action KJanowic to propose options on Sensing class for SSN new 20:44:29 Created ACTION-302 - Propose options on sensing class for ssn new [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-04-11]. 20:44:51 ahaller2: still on topic for this wiki page -- some more issues are there 20:44:59 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#OM_Alignment_utility 20:45:18 q? 20:45:29 ... I don't think we can go through all the terms here but we can invite people to look who have not had time yet 20:45:41 ... is there anything specific we should look at now? 20:46:00 mlefranc: the first on feature of interest and propoerties /hasproperry/ispropertyog 20:46:14 ...should they be in sosa and ssn or deprecate latogether? 20:46:37 ahaller2: we did something here ... i thoight we had them unchanged 20:46:54 ... they are used in sosa comments although they o not exist 20:47:05 s/SensingProcedure/ObservationProcedure/g 20:47:05 hmm, can you give examples? 20:47:09 ... linking geatureofinterest and properties 20:47:12 s/g/f/ 20:47:20 q+ 20:47:23 ...strange if used in text but not defined in sosa at all 20:47:26 ack KJanowic 20:47:41 KJanowic: am confused 20:47:50 Activity of carrying out an (Observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a Property of a FeatureOfInterest. 20:47:53 mlefranc: will provide example 20:48:12 q+ 20:48:19 yes, the observedProperty! 20:48:26 mlefranc: here is an implicit link between prop and feature 20:48:47 q? 20:48:54 ahaller2: in some comments we need to make sure that if something is not a class it should not be capitalised 20:49:05 KJanowic: but that sentence is totally ok 20:49:19 ... the only propble is Property should not be upper case? 20:49:38 ahaller2: [agrees] 20:49:41 sosa:ObservableProperty 20:49:43 ack KJanowic 20:49:45 q? 20:49:50 q+ 20:50:14 KJanowic: i will go throuigh it all and check each text def matches the axioms 20:50:22 ahaller2: i can do that 20:50:40 ACTION ahaller2 checking definitions in SOSA to make sure we do not reference terms in capital letters that are not terms in the ontology 20:50:41 Created ACTION-303 - Checking definitions in sosa to make sure we do not reference terms in capital letters that are not terms in the ontology [on Armin Haller - due 2017-04-11]. 20:50:43 s.propble/problem/ 20:51:04 see definition of sosa:observedProperty: Relation linking an Observation to the Property that was observed. The observedProperty should be a Property (hasProperty) of the FeatureOfInterest (linked by featureOfInterest) of this observation. 20:51:06 q? 20:51:07 s/propble/problem/ 20:51:13 ack mlefranc 20:51:31 again only a naming issue 20:51:32 mlefranc: I can help but here is another example of the problem -- it is not just case 20:51:45 q+ 20:51:50 q+ 20:51:59 ...the observed property is a property and it is called hasProperty which is not in sosa 20:52:07 ack KJanowic 20:52:21 ahaller2: i will check all these -- some of the comments are out of date 20:52:26 KJanowic: agrees 20:52:46 ack SimonCox 20:53:33 I agree with Simon, no way of being 'feature complete' 20:53:33 q+ to ask about featureOfInterest/FeatureOfInterest 20:53:36 SimonCox: want to comment on hasProperty - the reality is that there is an unlimited set of relations are possible 20:54:14 ....business iof providding a generic metamodel... in order to c0onnect with all possible things is maybe intersting 20:54:26 I would strongly suggest not to have a very generic hasProperty property. 20:54:28 ... from a completeness point of view 20:54:32 q+ 20:54:40 q- later 20:55:12 ... e.g geospatial part of iso.. does not make the worl;d a better place 20:55:41 ... i say that rdf property is not present but this is not a major problem 20:56:08 hasProperty was a name we used tome time ago that has been replaced some time ago 20:56:10 q? 20:56:14 ack mlefranc 20:56:15 ahaller2: is nlly used in property path .. doe we need to deprecate? 20:56:33 q- 20:56:39 s/nlly/only 20:57:02 mlefranc: i understand simon's point but it is used , so options fr ssn are put in sosa, change text, and I sue them extensivlely 20:57:27 okay with me 20:57:27 q+ 20:57:28 If they are used, then they should stay - I withdraw my objection - leave them in the 'full' ontology 20:57:31 q? 20:57:32 ack phila 20:57:35 ahaller2: do not want it in sosa --- i will fix up text in sosa 20:57:57 phila: it sounds like this makes sense 20:58:18 ... am looking at feature ofinterest -- there is a class and a property 20:58:22 q+ 20:58:33 ...ssn has "featureofinterest" without the "has" 20:58:46 ... are we making anypro 20:58:47 q+ 20:59:01 +1 phila - 'hasFeatureOfInterest' rather than 'featureOfInterest' 20:59:10 are me using any propert with the same name as the class (with only prperty differnt?) 20:59:15 ack KJanowic 20:59:21 ahaller2: intention is we don't it must be leftover 20:59:29 KJanowic: thanks for spotting 20:59:45 ... we have done a lot of renaming over past few meetings 21:00:04 .... there are so many things we need to keep track of and things get out of sync 21:00:14 .... there will be no such cases. 21:00:21 q? 21:00:34 ack kerry 21:00:40 ahaller2: editors are stuggling to keep up with speed of change 21:01:26 Sometimes a simple change in one file triggers changes in many different files and we need to keep everything in sync but sometimes there will be meetings where this is not the case as syncing has not yet taken place. 21:01:46 ahaller2: we also have an issue of internationalisation of comments 21:02:03 can we do that when under review? or does it need to be done beforejnad 21:02:10 ..we do not have time in next 3 weeks 21:02:26 ... yes for the doc in ns space, but tr space doc is only in English 21:02:34 ... so yes, no timeout at all 21:02:36 q? 21:02:44 q+ 21:03:08 ahaller2: 2 options for isproperty and has proerty 21:03:14 keep in new-ssn, we do not include it in sosa? 21:03:18 q? 21:03:19 ...just need to vlean up comments in sosa 21:03:22 ack kerry 21:03:40 q+ 21:04:17 q? 21:04:20 ack KJanowic 21:04:32 ahaller2: still working on comments in english -- will do translations later 21:04:38 ok 21:04:45 KJanowic: is there a vote? 21:05:12 ... something that means we do not revisits 21:05:21 PROPOSED: hasProperty and isPropertyOf remain in SSN new as is 21:05:30 but not in SOSA 21:05:32 +1 21:05:36 +1 21:05:38 0 21:05:38 +1 21:05:42 0 21:05:45 0 21:05:49 +1 21:06:21 RESOLVED: hasProperty and isPropertyOf remain in SSN new as is 21:06:39 ahaller2: i will clean up any reference in sosa 21:06:44 I can take over 21:06:47 ....scribe? 21:06:55 scribe KJanowic 21:06:59 scribenick KJanowic 21:07:18 scribe: KJanowic 21:07:23 topic: Progress on ACTION-284, temporal properties in both SOSA/SSN 21:07:25 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_in_SOSA_and_SSN 21:07:31 scribenick: KJanowic 21:07:31 q+ 21:07:40 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/284 21:07:43 +1 21:07:50 q? 21:07:51 +q 21:07:56 ack KJanowic 21:08:33 KJanowic: startTime and endTime was decided to be deprecated 21:08:50 -q 21:09:06 ... system, latencylifetime etc. are some other time properties 21:09:35 ... samplingTime = phenomenonTime was introduced earlier 21:10:24 ... sosa:phenomenonTime and sosa:resultTime was proposed to be the only time properties left 21:11:18 one has one was not 21:11:28 q? 21:11:35 +qq 21:11:36 q+ 21:11:42 q+ 21:11:56 The proposal on the table is "Deprecate ssn:observationSamplingTime and ssn:observationResultTime and use sosa:phenomenonTime and sosa:resultTime exclusively, making both of them object type properties (that make use of the new OWL-Time). " 21:11:57 ack DanhLePhuoc 21:12:02 ack q 21:12:26 exactly my concern as well but see Raul's reply 21:12:32 q+ 21:12:52 q+ 21:13:15 @DanhLePhuoc we will generate a lot of more data, performance-wise this may be an issue worth considering 21:13:24 ack kerry 21:13:33