IRC log of sdwssn on 2017-04-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:48:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
19:48:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-irc
19:48:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
19:48:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdwssn
19:49:01 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
19:49:01 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
19:49:02 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:49:02 [trackbot]
Date: 04 April 2017
19:49:13 [tidoust]
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170404
19:59:55 [phila]
phila has joined #sdwssn
20:00:07 [kerry]
kerry has joined #sdwssn
20:00:44 [DanhLePhuoc]
DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
20:01:27 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
20:02:00 [phila]
trackbot, start meeting
20:02:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
20:02:06 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
20:02:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:02:06 [trackbot]
Date: 04 April 2017
20:02:06 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
20:02:59 [tidoust]
Present+ Francois
20:03:02 [phila]
s/Working/SSN Task Force/
20:03:10 [phila]
present+
20:03:11 [RaulGarciaCastro]
present+ RaulGarciaCastro
20:03:41 [KJanowic]
KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
20:03:44 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
20:04:36 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
20:04:43 [ahaller2]
scribe: kerry
20:04:50 [ahaller2]
scribenick: kerry
20:04:58 [DanhLePhuoc]
present+ DanhLePhuoc
20:05:14 [KJanowic]
present+
20:05:59 [kerry]
present+
20:06:38 [mlefranc]
mlefranc has joined #sdwssn
20:06:59 [mlefranc]
present+
20:07:29 [SimonCox]
present+
20:07:41 [ahaller2]
topic: Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-sdwssn-minutes
20:07:50 [mlefranc]
+1
20:07:53 [kerry]
-1
20:07:53 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+1
20:07:55 [ahaller2]
+1
20:07:56 [SimonCox]
+1
20:07:56 [tidoust]
+1
20:08:12 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
20:08:39 [kerry]
please add regrets for kerry to minutes
20:08:40 [KJanowic]
+1
20:08:53 [kerry]
phila: I can do it
20:08:58 [kerry]
+1
20:09:02 [ahaller2]
topic: Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:09:30 [ahaller2]
topic: Progress on issue ISSUE-111, replace isStimulatedBy by wasOriginatedBy
20:09:42 [RaulGarciaCastro]
s/111/117/
20:09:45 [ChrisLittle]
ChrisLittle has joined #SDWssn
20:09:45 [RaulGarciaCastro]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
20:09:55 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/111
20:10:04 [kerry]
issue-117?
20:10:04 [trackbot]
issue-117 -- The dul:includesEvent property has disapeared -- open
20:10:04 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
20:10:09 [ChrisLittle]
present+ ChrisLittle
20:10:11 [ClausStadler]
ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
20:10:19 [ClausStadler]
present+ ClausStadler
20:10:25 [ChrisLittle]
* no audio, just lurking
20:10:30 [phila]
[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 [kerry]
armin invites raul to speak
20:10:44 [kerry]
raul: at end of page can see implementation
20:11:01 [phila]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170404
20:11:05 [phila]
chair: Armin
20:11:14 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:11:28 [kerry]
... new prop was isStimulatedBy
20:11:31 [ahaller2]
q?
20:11:38 [kerry]
armin: can we close the issue? questions?
20:11:53 [phila]
close issue-117
20:11:53 [trackbot]
Closed issue-117.
20:12:05 [phila]
issue-111?
20:12:05 [trackbot]
issue-111 -- SOSA/SSN mapping to O&M needed -- raised
20:12:05 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/111
20:12:12 [ahaller2]
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 [phila]
action-295?
20:12:20 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/295
20:12:29 [mlefranc]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Measurement_and_Operating_properties_for_actuators
20:12:34 [phila]
Topic: Action-295
20:12:40 [mlefranc]
q+
20:12:44 [kerry]
armin: maxime or krz to speak on this?
20:12:47 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:13:11 [kerry]
maxime: the main issue is properties that can also apply to actuators (Measurement props)
20:13:21 [kerry]
three options (too fast) discussed last week
20:13:32 [kerry]
...worked on implementing option 2
20:13:45 [KJanowic]
Maxime did all the work on this so far so I leave it to him to introduce the changes
20:13:52 [kerry]
maxime: measurementX becomes systemX
20:14:19 [kerry]
...you can see I tried to rewrite most of the defs so they now apply to system
20:14:47 [kerry]
... would like to introduce repeatability for actuators
20:15:15 [kerry]
... [not keeping up]
20:15:30 [kerry]
...old classes and props would become sub- of these new ones.
20:15:37 [ahaller2]
q?
20:15:57 [kerry]
armin: looks good to me
20:16:01 [RaulGarciaCastro]
also good for me
20:16:01 [kerry]
...what do others thing?
20:16:03 [ahaller2]
q?
20:16:23 [mlefranc]
q+
20:16:28 [KJanowic]
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 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:16:32 [KJanowic]
q+
20:16:46 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:17:10 [kerry]
k: has not looked at it, agrees do an implementation
20:17:45 [kerry]
ahaller2: giving an anction item
20:17:47 [ahaller2]
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 [trackbot]
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 [mlefranc]
q+
20:17:57 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:18:01 [kerry]
s/k:/kJanowic/
20:18:08 [mlefranc]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0233.html
20:18:19 [kerry]
mlefranc: draw attention to issue
20:18:54 [kerry]
...measurement range has moved so now way systems linked to capabilities now duplicated --- but called Xrange
20:19:17 [kerry]
...so we have a structure for measurement propoerties and measurement range
20:19:25 [kerry]
...[not keeping up]
20:19:30 [kerry]
...asking for opinion
20:19:34 [ahaller2]
q?
20:20:17 [kerry]
ahaller2: anyone recall why this is so?
20:20:46 [kerry]
mlefranc: suggest deprecate previous measurement range
20:21:01 [kerry]
... or rename
20:21:07 [kerry]
...i prefer the former
20:21:14 [kerry]
ahaller2: agrees
20:21:20 [kerry]
q+
20:21:27 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
20:21:55 [phila]
kerry: For the previous topic and this one, I can't keep up with adding various links to the IRC
20:22:38 [phila]
kerry: If people don't have time to comment, maybe the option is to do nothing.
20:22:49 [kerry]
ahaller2: have been talking for past meetings
20:22:50 [phila]
ahaller2: It's not a new issue, we've been talking about it for the last 2 meetings
20:23:04 [ahaller2]
q?
20:23:10 [phila]
ahaller2: Comments on the pull requests usually works wewll
20:23:20 [phila]
s/wew/we/
20:23:27 [kerry]
ahaller2: any other comments?
20:23:53 [ahaller2]
q?
20:23:56 [kerry]
...please maxime indicate which issue in PR -- do 2 PRs
20:24:05 [ahaller2]
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 [ahaller2]
q?
20:24:51 [kerry]
ahaller2: krz what did you do here?
20:24:53 [phila]
issue-296
20:24:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, but issue-296 does not exist.
20:25:02 [phila]
action-296
20:25:02 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/296
20:25:08 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/153
20:25:09 [phila]
issue-153
20:25:09 [trackbot]
issue-153 -- reconsider role of device in ssn as a result of the changes to platform required for sosa -- raised
20:25:09 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/153
20:25:20 [kerry]
KJanowic: link broken -- if about putting in writing not done yet, only changed source code
20:25:51 [kerry]
ahaller2: [missed] around changes to sensing devices and device class
20:26:30 [KJanowic]
Okay sorry, I have no updates on this for this week.
20:26:32 [kerry]
...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 [kerry]
...was an email sent
20:26:43 [ahaller2]
q?
20:27:04 [kerry]
KJanowic: i will do this next week
20:27:17 [ahaller2]
q?
20:27:37 [kerry]
ahaller2: i will change date on action item
20:28:06 [ahaller2]
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 [phila]
action-298
20:28:19 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/298
20:28:31 [mlefranc]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Terms
20:28:50 [kerry]
ahaller2: maxime sent an email and made a wiki page
20:29:02 [KJanowic]
q+
20:29:17 [kerry]
mlefranc: i posted the link - you can see i split the old ssn terms into little "modules" and
20:29:17 [ahaller2]
close action-298
20:29:17 [trackbot]
Closed action-298.
20:29:39 [kerry]
... the third col is the new term in the lite vs the full ontology
20:29:53 [kerry]
... if we agree on all the axioms and naming and alignment ...
20:30:01 [kerry]
...ot all finished yet.
20:30:11 [kerry]
.... at the right we can put comments if needed
20:30:21 [kerry]
....we should go through them quickly
20:30:55 [kerry]
ahaller2: has anyone looked? some of this is still open issues and many are terms we have not yet discussed
20:31:18 [kerry]
... could be left unchanged unless there is n issue
20:31:32 [kerry]
... maybe if we cannot find implementations we could deprectate
20:31:37 [KJanowic]
q+
20:31:44 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:31:44 [kerry]
... maybe just there is nothing wrong with the status quo
20:32:10 [kerry]
KJanowic: i already worte something 2 hours ago -- I am surprised about sensing
20:32:18 [mlefranc]
q+
20:32:29 [kerry]
..old ssn distinguished sensing (process) from observation -- the latter is the setting or context
20:32:53 [kerry]
... in a f2f we agrred that observation should be an activity
20:32:59 [kerry]
...so we don't need sensing any more
20:33:07 [ahaller2]
q?
20:33:29 [kerry]
ahaller2: propose to deprecate sensing?
20:33:47 [kerry]
KJanowic: yes
20:33:47 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:34:22 [KJanowic]
"Sensing is a process that results in the estimation, or calculation, of the value of a phenomenon."
20:34:25 [KJanowic]
q+
20:34:35 [kerry]
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 [KJanowic]
That would not work as procedure means something slightly different
20:34:52 [kerry]
... could rename sesning as sensingprocedure
20:35:01 [kerry]
... could also have actuatingprocuedure
20:35:02 [ahaller2]
q?
20:35:02 [kerry]
q+
20:35:06 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:35:31 [kerry]
KJanowic: this is more complicated becuase one procedure for several observations
20:35:47 [mlefranc]
definition: Sensing is a procedure that results in the estimation, or calculation, of the value of a phenomenon.
20:36:00 [kerry]
the sensing is the act of carryin out -- the actual thing each time
20:36:08 [kerry]
... i would simply deprecate
20:36:10 [ahaller2]
q?
20:36:14 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
20:36:56 [ahaller2]
s/carryin/carrying
20:37:08 [KJanowic]
we can deprecated sensing
20:37:16 [phila]
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 [KJanowic]
that is what I proposed
20:37:25 [KJanowic]
q+
20:37:33 [phila]
... I can't see that it's disappeared but I may not be keeping up
20:37:41 [mlefranc]
q+
20:37:45 [phila]
... The change of procedure to process I lost track of
20:37:45 [SimonCox]
q+
20:37:54 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:38:24 [mlefranc]
q- want to let simon speak
20:38:28 [mlefranc]
q-
20:38:31 [kerry]
KJanowic: so observation is the act
20:38:41 [kerry]
... to translate stimulus to a result
20:38:49 [kerry]
... which is different to a social construct
20:38:54 [SimonCox]
q-
20:39:04 [kerry]
... like a nexus (as neon and dulce would do it)
20:39:18 [kerry]
... we don't need to use the sensing any more
20:39:33 [kerry]
... so i would deprecate the sensing class
20:39:52 [KJanowic]
observation is now the act of carrying out the activity that the snesor performs to translate the stimulus to a result
20:39:56 [ahaller2]
q?
20:39:57 [kerry]
ahaller2: makes sense
20:40:03 [mlefranc]
* kerry, mute yourself please :-)
20:40:16 [KJanowic]
[please mute yourself when you type :-)]
20:40:23 [KJanowic]
q+
20:40:39 [kerry]
ahaller2: action item? alternative is to intro a similar class for actuation pattern
20:40:47 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:41:09 [kerry]
.... what you just said about stimulus is more complicated
20:41:24 [kerry]
... per definition of stimulus you canot have implementations of that
20:41:25 [ahaller2]
q?
20:41:42 [mlefranc]
q+
20:41:44 [kerry]
ahaller2: propose issue a pr
20:41:50 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:41:59 [KJanowic]
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 [mlefranc]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=Sensing_and_Actuating&action=edit&redlink=1
20:42:08 [kerry]
mlefranc: there are some claer options -- a Pr is a bit too quick
20:42:09 [KJanowic]
s/modelleing/modeling
20:42:21 [KJanowic]
Okay, I can do so
20:42:24 [kerry]
... suggest a new page "sensing and actuating" is already there
20:42:30 [KJanowic]
q+
20:42:43 [KJanowic]
but this is not covered by the term 'observation'
20:42:49 [kerry]
... to me you can instantiate sensing and do some cooking to make an observation.
20:42:50 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:43:14 [SimonCox]
Note I introduced a 'SensingProcedure' class in the O&M alignment
20:43:16 [kerry]
KJanowic: please lay at options and explain rationale - a bit too early for pr -- deprecating will be the easist
20:43:54 [kerry]
ahaller2: can deprecate or rename or make it like actuation -- please lay out options on wiki
20:43:55 [SimonCox]
'SensingProcedure' is a sub-class of Procedure
20:44:18 [SimonCox]
also SamplingProcedure and ActuationProcedure
20:44:29 [ahaller2]
action KJanowic to propose options on Sensing class for SSN new
20:44:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-302 - Propose options on sensing class for ssn new [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-04-11].
20:44:51 [kerry]
ahaller2: still on topic for this wiki page -- some more issues are there
20:44:59 [SimonCox]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#OM_Alignment_utility
20:45:18 [ahaller2]
q?
20:45:29 [kerry]
... 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 [kerry]
... is there anything specific we should look at now?
20:46:00 [kerry]
mlefranc: the first on feature of interest and propoerties /hasproperry/ispropertyog
20:46:14 [kerry]
...should they be in sosa and ssn or deprecate latogether?
20:46:37 [kerry]
ahaller2: we did something here ... i thoight we had them unchanged
20:46:54 [kerry]
... they are used in sosa comments although they o not exist
20:47:05 [SimonCox]
s/SensingProcedure/ObservationProcedure/g
20:47:05 [KJanowic]
hmm, can you give examples?
20:47:09 [kerry]
... linking geatureofinterest and properties
20:47:12 [kerry]
s/g/f/
20:47:20 [KJanowic]
q+
20:47:23 [kerry]
...strange if used in text but not defined in sosa at all
20:47:26 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:47:41 [kerry]
KJanowic: am confused
20:47:50 [mlefranc]
Activity of carrying out an (Observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a Property of a FeatureOfInterest.
20:47:53 [kerry]
mlefranc: will provide example
20:48:12 [KJanowic]
q+
20:48:19 [KJanowic]
yes, the observedProperty!
20:48:26 [kerry]
mlefranc: here is an implicit link between prop and feature
20:48:47 [ahaller2]
q?
20:48:54 [kerry]
ahaller2: in some comments we need to make sure that if something is not a class it should not be capitalised
20:49:05 [kerry]
KJanowic: but that sentence is totally ok
20:49:19 [kerry]
... the only propble is Property should not be upper case?
20:49:38 [kerry]
ahaller2: [agrees]
20:49:41 [KJanowic]
sosa:ObservableProperty
20:49:43 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:49:45 [ahaller2]
q?
20:49:50 [mlefranc]
q+
20:50:14 [kerry]
KJanowic: i will go throuigh it all and check each text def matches the axioms
20:50:22 [kerry]
ahaller2: i can do that
20:50:40 [ahaller2]
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 [trackbot]
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 [kerry]
s.propble/problem/
20:51:04 [mlefranc]
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 [ahaller2]
q?
20:51:07 [kerry]
s/propble/problem/
20:51:13 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:51:31 [KJanowic]
again only a naming issue
20:51:32 [kerry]
mlefranc: I can help but here is another example of the problem -- it is not just case
20:51:45 [KJanowic]
q+
20:51:50 [SimonCox]
q+
20:51:59 [kerry]
...the observed property is a property and it is called hasProperty which is not in sosa
20:52:07 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:52:21 [kerry]
ahaller2: i will check all these -- some of the comments are out of date
20:52:26 [kerry]
KJanowic: agrees
20:52:46 [ahaller2]
ack SimonCox
20:53:33 [KJanowic]
I agree with Simon, no way of being 'feature complete'
20:53:33 [phila]
q+ to ask about featureOfInterest/FeatureOfInterest
20:53:36 [kerry]
SimonCox: want to comment on hasProperty - the reality is that there is an unlimited set of relations are possible
20:54:14 [kerry]
....business iof providding a generic metamodel... in order to c0onnect with all possible things is maybe intersting
20:54:26 [KJanowic]
I would strongly suggest not to have a very generic hasProperty property.
20:54:28 [kerry]
... from a completeness point of view
20:54:32 [mlefranc]
q+
20:54:40 [phila]
q- later
20:55:12 [kerry]
... e.g geospatial part of iso.. does not make the worl;d a better place
20:55:41 [kerry]
... i say that rdf property is not present but this is not a major problem
20:56:08 [KJanowic]
hasProperty was a name we used tome time ago that has been replaced some time ago
20:56:10 [ahaller2]
q?
20:56:14 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:56:15 [kerry]
ahaller2: is nlly used in property path .. doe we need to deprecate?
20:56:33 [phila]
q-
20:56:39 [ahaller2]
s/nlly/only
20:57:02 [kerry]
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 [KJanowic]
okay with me
20:57:27 [phila]
q+
20:57:28 [SimonCox]
If they are used, then they should stay - I withdraw my objection - leave them in the 'full' ontology
20:57:31 [ahaller2]
q?
20:57:32 [ahaller2]
ack phila
20:57:35 [kerry]
ahaller2: do not want it in sosa --- i will fix up text in sosa
20:57:57 [kerry]
phila: it sounds like this makes sense
20:58:18 [kerry]
... am looking at feature ofinterest -- there is a class and a property
20:58:22 [KJanowic]
q+
20:58:33 [kerry]
...ssn has "featureofinterest" without the "has"
20:58:46 [kerry]
... are we making anypro
20:58:47 [kerry]
q+
20:59:01 [SimonCox]
+1 phila - 'hasFeatureOfInterest' rather than 'featureOfInterest'
20:59:10 [kerry]
are me using any propert with the same name as the class (with only prperty differnt?)
20:59:15 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:59:21 [kerry]
ahaller2: intention is we don't it must be leftover
20:59:29 [kerry]
KJanowic: thanks for spotting
20:59:45 [kerry]
... we have done a lot of renaming over past few meetings
21:00:04 [kerry]
.... there are so many things we need to keep track of and things get out of sync
21:00:14 [kerry]
.... there will be no such cases.
21:00:21 [ahaller2]
q?
21:00:34 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:00:40 [kerry]
ahaller2: editors are stuggling to keep up with speed of change
21:01:26 [KJanowic]
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 [kerry]
ahaller2: we also have an issue of internationalisation of comments
21:02:03 [kerry]
can we do that when under review? or does it need to be done beforejnad
21:02:10 [kerry]
..we do not have time in next 3 weeks
21:02:26 [kerry]
... yes for the doc in ns space, but tr space doc is only in English
21:02:34 [kerry]
... so yes, no timeout at all
21:02:36 [ahaller2]
q?
21:02:44 [kerry]
q+
21:03:08 [kerry]
ahaller2: 2 options for isproperty and has proerty
21:03:14 [KJanowic]
keep in new-ssn, we do not include it in sosa?
21:03:18 [ahaller2]
q?
21:03:19 [kerry]
...just need to vlean up comments in sosa
21:03:22 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:03:40 [KJanowic]
q+
21:04:17 [ahaller2]
q?
21:04:20 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:04:32 [kerry]
ahaller2: still working on comments in english -- will do translations later
21:04:38 [mlefranc]
ok
21:04:45 [kerry]
KJanowic: is there a vote?
21:05:12 [kerry]
... something that means we do not revisits
21:05:21 [ahaller2]
PROPOSED: hasProperty and isPropertyOf remain in SSN new as is
21:05:30 [KJanowic]
but not in SOSA
21:05:32 [KJanowic]
+1
21:05:36 [kerry]
+1
21:05:38 [mlefranc]
0
21:05:38 [ahaller2]
+1
21:05:42 [RaulGarciaCastro]
0
21:05:45 [DanhLePhuoc]
0
21:05:49 [SimonCox]
+1
21:06:21 [ahaller2]
RESOLVED: hasProperty and isPropertyOf remain in SSN new as is
21:06:39 [kerry]
ahaller2: i will clean up any reference in sosa
21:06:44 [KJanowic]
I can take over
21:06:47 [kerry]
....scribe?
21:06:55 [ahaller2]
scribe KJanowic
21:06:59 [ahaller2]
scribenick KJanowic
21:07:18 [kerry]
scribe: KJanowic
21:07:23 [ahaller2]
topic: Progress on ACTION-284, temporal properties in both SOSA/SSN
21:07:25 [KJanowic]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_in_SOSA_and_SSN
21:07:31 [kerry]
scribenick: KJanowic
21:07:31 [KJanowic]
q+
21:07:40 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/284
21:07:43 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:07:50 [ahaller2]
q?
21:07:51 [DanhLePhuoc]
+q
21:07:56 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:08:33 [ahaller2]
KJanowic: startTime and endTime was decided to be deprecated
21:08:50 [DanhLePhuoc]
-q
21:09:06 [ahaller2]
... system, latencylifetime etc. are some other time properties
21:09:35 [ahaller2]
... samplingTime = phenomenonTime was introduced earlier
21:10:24 [ahaller2]
... sosa:phenomenonTime and sosa:resultTime was proposed to be the only time properties left
21:11:18 [KJanowic]
one has one was not
21:11:28 [ahaller2]
q?
21:11:35 [DanhLePhuoc]
+qq
21:11:36 [kerry]
q+
21:11:42 [DanhLePhuoc]
q+
21:11:56 [KJanowic]
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 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:12:02 [ahaller2]
ack q
21:12:26 [KJanowic]
exactly my concern as well but see Raul's reply
21:12:32 [KJanowic]
q+
21:12:52 [ahaller2]
q+
21:13:15 [KJanowic]
@DanhLePhuoc we will generate a lot of more data, performance-wise this may be an issue worth considering
21:13:24 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:13:33 [KJanowic]
we will need an extra triple every time we have a result time and this will be very frequent
21:14:04 [KJanowic]
kerry: these would be the only time properties, yes?
21:14:11 [KJanowic]
kj: yes,those are unchanged
21:14:24 [KJanowic]
q+
21:14:39 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:14:42 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: if we get implementation evidence, we will keep them
21:15:24 [ahaller2]
q?
21:15:31 [ahaller2]
ack ahaller
21:16:06 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: define both as rdf property and then in ssn-new make them datatype and objecttype properties.
21:16:08 [KJanowic]
q+
21:16:12 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:16:15 [SimonCox]
I think the issue is between model and implementation ...
21:16:50 [KJanowic]
Maxime:
21:16:51 [KJanowic]
This could be interesting, these are the side effects I can think of now: - we would need to assert these properties are instances of AnnotationProperty, else the ontology would not be OWL DL; - no ontology that extends SSN can assert it's also a ObjectProperty or a DatatypeProperty; - one cannot make this property be involved in a OWL logical axiom in any possible way, apart from rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and rdfs:subPropertyOf; - still, people can crea[CUT]
21:17:10 [SimonCox]
In principle it is indeed an object property (with time-instant as the object) but there is a simpler solution in the implementation layer.
21:17:20 [kerry]
q+
21:17:28 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:17:45 [KJanowic]
kerry: no, I do not think that this is true
21:17:49 [KJanowic]
q+
21:18:03 [SimonCox]
By 'building in' the XSD types, OWL doesn't separate concerns properly, so we get problems like this ...
21:18:07 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:18:45 [kerry]
q+
21:18:57 [KJanowic]
maxime: then you are not in OWL2 DL
21:19:09 [KJanowic]
q+
21:19:25 [KJanowic]
maxime we should use one of those
21:19:43 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:19:45 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: we would only use rdf:Property in SOSA and ObjectProperty or a DatatypeProperty in SSN
21:20:03 [SimonCox]
q+
21:20:03 [KJanowic]
kerry: agrees with ahaller
21:20:31 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:22:05 [SimonCox]
q-
21:22:33 [DanhLePhuoc]
q+
21:22:51 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:23:03 [KJanowic]
ahaller and kj: keep the current version in which resultTime remains a datatype property
21:23:17 [KJanowic]
danh: the user can directly attach the simple value
21:23:37 [KJanowic]
danh: no need to introduce a blank node here as this will be so commonly used
21:23:50 [KJanowic]
danh: data more important
21:23:51 [ahaller2]
q?
21:23:52 [KJanowic]
q+
21:23:56 [kerry]
q+
21:24:00 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:24:45 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:25:14 [KJanowic]
kerry: supports that Danh said
21:25:46 [ahaller2]
q?
21:25:55 [KJanowic]
kerry: what is the use case for not having result time just being a time stamp
21:26:03 [mlefranc]
q+
21:26:06 [KJanowic]
why does it need to be an objecttype property
21:26:33 [ahaller2]
q?
21:26:44 [RaulGarciaCastro]
q+
21:26:47 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:26:59 [ahaller2]
ack RaulGarciaCastro
21:27:01 [mlefranc]
q+
21:27:22 [KJanowic]
raul: The idea of having them as object type properties was to use the time ontology and allow users to select which one to select.
21:27:26 [kerry]
q+
21:27:49 [KJanowic]
Raul: I think this has a lot of value, maybe somebody wants to use more complex time models
21:27:53 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:28:20 [KJanowic]
Maxime: if we keep them as is, I just want to make sure that they will never be linked by subproperty axioms
21:28:22 [KJanowic]
q+
21:28:23 [SimonCox]
q+
21:28:41 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:29:18 [RaulGarciaCastro]
For example
21:29:18 [KJanowic]
Kerry: Raul, I think you convinced me. Example: satellite images.
21:29:36 [KJanowic]
kj: I do not understand the satellite example
21:29:42 [SimonCox]
Definition of resultTime is 'when the act was completed' so it is axiomatically a time stamp (instant)!
21:29:56 [KJanowic]
Kerry: why not have a simple and a more complex solution?
21:30:08 [ahaller2]
q?
21:30:10 [KJanowic]
q+ (have to disagree_
21:30:17 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:30:57 [ClausStadler]
q+ (i agree with kerry's solution)
21:31:03 [ClausStadler]
q+
21:31:30 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:31:47 [ahaller2]
ack SimonCox
21:32:00 [tidoust]
q- (have
21:33:01 [kerry]
q+ to correct that use case
21:33:13 [KJanowic]
Simon: Agree with KJ. ResultTime is a time stamp. It is when the entire observation act is completed. This was done by design in O&M and does away with the problem. So, by definition resultTime is an instant. No matter how long the observation process takes, the resultTime is when the process finished.
21:33:31 [ahaller2]
q?
21:33:35 [ahaller2]
ack ClausStadler
21:34:09 [KJanowic]
ClausStadler: In some cases people model time using time intervals and their relations.
21:34:10 [KJanowic]
q+
21:34:47 [KJanowic]
claus: kerry's approach will give you the flexibility
21:35:30 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:35:30 [Zakim]
kerry, you wanted to correct that use case
21:35:35 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: let us reverse the pattern here and have the simple case be the default and intorduce the complex case for SSN only. Conceptual neighborhoods vor resultTimes may matter but would be very rare
21:35:56 [KJanowic]
Kerry: totally with Armin and Claus.
21:36:11 [KJanowic]
Kerry: let us just not call it complextime.
21:36:24 [KJanowic]
but this is not the resultTime we are discussing rihght now
21:36:32 [ahaller2]
q?
21:36:32 [KJanowic]
s/rihght/right
21:36:39 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:37:07 [SimonCox]
If a particular application needs a more sophisticated set of time properties, then these can be added in an ontology for that application.
21:37:35 [ahaller2]
q?
21:37:55 [kerry]
s/not the resultTime / the satellite use case is all about resulttime, not processing time/
21:38:05 [ahaller2]
q?
21:38:20 [KJanowic]
let us vote on the idea first, then on the exact name.
21:38:32 [KJanowic]
sometimes we all agree on the issue but disagree on the name :-)
21:39:00 [ahaller2]
PROPOSED: phenomenonTime is an object property, resultTime a datatype property in SOSA and SSN will introduce a new complex result time property (pending name) that is an object property
21:39:09 [KJanowic]
+1
21:39:21 [ahaller2]
+1
21:39:31 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:39:33 [kerry]
+1
21:39:34 [ClausStadler]
+1
21:39:37 [mlefranc]
0
21:39:48 [RaulGarciaCastro]
0
21:39:58 [SimonCox]
+0.5 because not sure about '*will* introduce'
21:40:20 [KJanowic]
q+
21:40:33 [KJanowic]
simon: may, not will
21:40:38 [ahaller2]
RESOLVED: phenomenonTime is an object property, resultTime a datatype property in SOSA and SSN will introduce a new complex result time property (pending name) that is an object propert
21:40:43 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:41:43 [ahaller2]
q?
21:42:04 [SimonCox]
'resultTime' is 'when the result became available'
21:42:05 [kerry]
q+
21:42:08 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:42:09 [KJanowic]
kj: they will have a slightly different semantics; we will need to change the definition in sosa.ttl
21:42:41 [SimonCox]
q+
21:42:54 [KJanowic]
Kerry: most useful if it was allowed for an observation to [did not get the rest]
21:43:14 [KJanowic]
Kerry: would drop the term instant
21:43:21 [KJanowic]
q+
21:43:44 [KJanowic]
Kerry: the time at which the observation was made and you can do what you like with it.
21:43:57 [KJanowic]
Claus: the simple value is just the quantification.
21:44:10 [KJanowic]
Claus: the complex version can get an URI
21:44:37 [DanhLePhuoc]
q+
21:44:40 [KJanowic]
kj: IMHO 'whatever you want' is always dangerous when it comes to definitions within an ontology
21:44:48 [ahaller2]
ack SimonCox
21:45:59 [KJanowic]
SimonCox: I would like to get back to the real semantics of resultTime. The satellite sensing case gets stimuli over a long time but this is not what resultTime expresses but phenomenonTime.
21:46:24 [KJanowic]
SimonCox: Many possible time properties but let us not try to define all of them. What we have covers the most common cases
21:46:52 [KJanowic]
SimonCox: I am worried about a time property without clear semantics.
21:47:17 [KJanowic]
SimonCox: we should not leave this up to the data providers and users.
21:47:19 [ahaller2]
q?
21:47:22 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:48:10 [DanhLePhuoc]
-q
21:49:53 [KJanowic]
Claus: in principle yes.
21:50:15 [KJanowic]
kj: this is very similar to how pellet handled spatial topology
21:50:41 [KJanowic]
Claus: not exactly sure how that will work.
21:50:47 [KJanowic]
q+ (can explain how it works)
21:50:52 [DanhLePhuoc]
+q
21:50:52 [KJanowic]
q+
21:51:14 [KJanowic]
Claus: okay, so maybe it is really not necessary.
21:51:17 [SimonCox]
[someone typing very loud!]
21:51:51 [KJanowic]
Ahaller2: can we work out a use case for next week?
21:52:05 [KJanowic]
claus: kj, can you help?
21:52:14 [KJanowic]
kj: sure
21:52:37 [ahaller2]
ACTION ClausStadler to investigate the need of a complex resultTime property in SSN new
21:52:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-304 - Investigate the need of a complex resulttime property in ssn new [on Claus Stadler - due 2017-04-11].
21:52:45 [ahaller2]
q?
21:52:50 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:53:31 [KJanowic]
Danh: one more example: sensor that has to calibrate the reading for a few minutes. It will present the data as observations that have a start time and end time.
21:53:59 [KJanowic]
Danh: measuring the speed of the car is one example. This uses a time interval.
21:54:12 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:56:07 [kerry]
q+
21:56:48 [SimonCox]
+1 KJanowic - that's exactly why it was named 'result-time' !
21:56:51 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:56:59 [ahaller2]
zakim close queue
21:57:20 [KJanowic]
Kerry: minor correction [quoting result time]
21:57:52 [KJanowic]
Kerry: asks for clarification of what ‘becomes available’ means.
21:57:57 [SimonCox]
... what I wrote at 23:42
21:58:11 [KJanowic]
kj: we need simon to speak about this
21:58:20 [ahaller2]
q?
21:58:23 [KJanowic]
Kerry: again, I believe we need both.
21:58:41 [ClausStadler]
+1 to KJanowic and SimonCox in regard to 'result-time'
21:59:00 [KJanowic]
Can do so
21:59:09 [KJanowic]
I will add it to the current wiki page
21:59:19 [SimonCox]
'became available' might mean 'inserted in data-store' or 'appeared on readout' or 'put on the wire' ...
21:59:39 [ahaller2]
ACTION KJanowic to revisit the rdfs:comment on sosa:resultTime
21:59:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-305 - Revisit the rdfs:comment on sosa:resulttime [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-04-11].
21:59:47 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:59:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
22:00:09 [ahaller2]
https://beta.doodle.com/poll/25yhn8a5ibg5c88u#table
22:00:09 [KJanowic]
Ahaller2: reminds everybody of the doodle poll.
22:00:15 [kerry]
so resulttime means "recording time"?
22:01:02 [KJanowic]
I do not see this timeslot on the doodle
22:01:54 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Open_Issues
22:02:09 [SimonCox]
kerry: in some cases, but 'became available' encompasses other possibilities
22:02:32 [SimonCox]
Well done all
22:02:33 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: we need to close all these issues in said meeting
22:02:33 [RaulGarciaCastro]
Bye!
22:02:35 [KJanowic]
Thanks everybody for this very productive meeting!
22:02:37 [KJanowic]
bye bye
22:02:40 [kerry]
bye!
22:02:43 [tidoust]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v3
22:02:43 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutes v3', tidoust. Try /msg RRSAgent help
22:02:47 [tidoust]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:02:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
22:03:04 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:03:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
22:03:17 [ChrisLittle]
bye
22:03:39 [phila]
regrets+ Rob, Scott
22:05:13 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:05:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-sdwssn-minutes.html phila
22:21:06 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
22:29:51 [ahaller2_]
ahaller2_ has joined #sdwssn
22:54:30 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:31:09 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn