IRC log of sdw on 2017-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:48:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
19:48:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:48:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
19:48:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
19:48:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
19:48:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
19:48:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:48:31 [trackbot]
Date: 19 April 2017
19:48:35 [phila]
regrets+ Jeremy, Scott, Linda, Andrea, Rachel
19:48:40 [phila]
chair: Ed
19:48:43 [phila]
scribe: Phila
19:48:47 [phila]
scribeNick: phila
19:50:41 [phila]
19:52:59 [eparsons]
trackbot, start meeting
19:53:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
19:53:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
19:53:05 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:53:05 [trackbot]
Date: 19 April 2017
19:53:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
19:53:19 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
19:54:10 [eparsons]
Regrets: Jeremy, Scott, Linda, Andrea
19:58:44 [DanhLePhuoc]
DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
19:59:03 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdw
19:59:53 [DanhLePhuoc]
present+ DanhLePhuoc
19:59:58 [SimonCox]
20:00:11 [roba]
roba has joined #sdw
20:00:17 [eparsons]
Present+ eparsons
20:01:04 [roba]
20:01:20 [phila]
20:01:39 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
20:02:37 [billroberts]
billroberts has joined #sdw
20:03:40 [Payam]
Payam has joined #sdw
20:03:46 [KJanowic]
KJanowic has joined #sdw
20:04:01 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
20:04:11 [KJanowic]
20:04:30 [billroberts]
present+ billroberts
20:05:06 [Payam]
present+ Payam
20:05:18 [RaulGarciaCastro]
present+ RaulGarciaCastro
20:05:25 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:05:31 [KJanowic]
20:05:33 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:05:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
20:06:00 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:06:08 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:06:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
20:06:14 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sdw
20:06:28 [MattPerry]
present+ MattPerry
20:07:00 [eparsons]
Topic : Approve last week's minutes
20:07:03 [phila]
eparsons: Full agenda, focused on the two docs
20:07:10 [eparsons]
20:07:22 [ahaller2]
20:07:22 [KJanowic]
20:07:26 [eparsons]
20:07:30 [SimonCox]
20:07:30 [MattPerry]
20:07:32 [Payam]
20:07:34 [phila]
-> Last call minutes
20:07:41 [phila]
20:07:42 [eparsons]
RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes
20:07:43 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:07:50 [eparsons]
Topic : Patent Call
20:07:51 [RaulGarciaCastro]
20:08:01 [eparsons]
20:08:45 [phila]
Topic: Time Ontology
20:09:06 [eparsons]
20:09:21 [phila]
eparsons: Invites Simon to talk through it
20:09:24 [SimonCox]
20:09:29 [phila]
SimonCox: There are 3 open issues
20:09:47 [phila]
... These relate to comments received from MSMcQ
20:10:00 [phila]
... Comments registered in 2007 on the original version.
20:10:15 [phila]
SimonCox: I dealt with almost all the comments last Thursday, leaving 3 for Chris to handle
20:10:35 [phila]
... Seem to just need words around them, won't have any impact on the ontology
20:11:03 [phila]
... I've not full finished liasising with Chris, but I don't think that should hold us up
20:11:35 [phila]
SimonCox: Relative to versions you'll have seen before... I've done some rewriting of section 1, removing the issue
20:11:44 [mlefranc]
mlefranc has joined #sdw
20:12:16 [phila]
... At the bottom, the examples section, I've added 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9
20:12:27 [mlefranc]
present+ mlefranc
20:12:32 [phila]
... 5-7 was requested by a couple of people, aligning a cople of other ontologies wwith OWL Time
20:13:00 [phila]
... 5-8 came from an Andrea who noted that DCAT made reference to OWL Time so I reflected that.
20:13:17 [phila]
... 5-9 there's an incomplete list of external uses of OWL Time
20:13:49 [phila]
SimonCox: I'm looking at other ontologies that import or just use OWL Time
20:14:11 [phila]
... One document bug, there are 2 separate reference lists. One is managed by hand
20:14:21 [phila]
... I planned to transfer those to the ReSpec config
20:14:33 [phila]
... Will need some help from W3C to solve that
20:14:51 [phila]
SimonCox: Want to add more to section 1 and then 5.9
20:14:59 [phila]
... My judgement is that the doc is ready for the next stage
20:15:02 [eparsons]
20:15:07 [phila]
20:15:11 [eparsons]
ack next
20:15:44 [eparsons]
phila next stage candidate recommendation
20:16:24 [eparsons]
phila CR means group is ready, wide review is complete.. seen evidence of this via email
20:16:44 [eparsons]
phila Thanks to SimonCox great work...
20:16:47 [ahaller2]
+1 for SimonCox' work on Time!
20:16:53 [KJanowic]
Same here!
20:17:39 [eparsons]
phila minor changes but these need to be done before CR, comments will need to be documented to director (table on wiki)
20:18:25 [eparsons]
phila comments disposition teleco with director formal step
20:18:59 [eparsons]
20:20:03 [eparsons]
SimonCox Can do section 1 today, need help with stylesheets
20:20:27 [eparsons]
SimonCox 5.9 replace with link
20:20:48 [eparsons]
phila Implementation report location is up to you..
20:21:14 [eparsons]
SimonCox Have email trails recorded just need to pull them out
20:21:34 [eparsons]
SimonCox chris has three issues to work, first is intro text...
20:21:57 [eparsons]
SimonCox Leap seconds is a Chris issue
20:22:38 [eparsons]
phila Chris needs to record responses to issues & add to depostion
20:23:08 [eparsons]
SimonCox 158 I will deal withm chris 161 and 163
20:23:15 [phila]
ack e
20:23:42 [phila]
eparsons: On process... wew haven't had the equivalent of published WDs in the way we have with other docs
20:24:00 [phila]
... We'll need to prove that we have socialised, had enough eyes on it
20:24:19 [phila]
... It's been almost entirely your work, Simon - and I agree that your work has been exemplary
20:24:37 [phila]
... But wedo need to show that it's not just Simon working in a dark room
20:24:45 [phila]
... How do we show that it's been reviewed?
20:24:54 [phila]
... I sense that might be a weakness for us
20:25:52 [KJanowic]
Can we solicit some of us that take another turn at the document with a track change of this on github?
20:26:00 [eparsons]
phila Disposition will include evidence of bringing this work to broader attention
20:26:49 [eparsons]
phila comments from 9 years ago is incredible !!
20:27:33 [phila]
eparsons: I want to be sure that we can defend the document
20:27:47 [phila]
... It's unfortunate that more members of the WG haven't had time to be as involved
20:28:16 [phila]
... If the content that we have is sufficient, then great but I worry about it a little.
20:28:30 [phila]
SimonCox: The nature of the product is a little different from the others
20:28:42 [phila]
... What we have is a minor advnace from what we had before
20:28:49 [KJanowic]
20:29:03 [phila]
eparsons: Your confidence and reputation goes a long way of course.
20:29:05 [eparsons]
ack next
20:29:22 [phila]
KJanowic: Would it help if we commented within the WG?
20:29:37 [phila]
... Or would that create more pain - I'm talking about cosmetic changes
20:29:52 [phila]
eparsons: I think at this point, cosmetic changes won't make a huge difference.
20:30:03 [phila]
SimonCox: I've had substantial input from Josh, Simon and Raul
20:30:15 [phila]
eparsons: That's recorded I guess so we can reference that
20:30:15 [phila]
20:30:18 [eparsons]
ack next
20:30:45 [phila]
phila: What are the equivalent OGC steps?
20:30:50 [phila]
SimonCox: It'll be an RFC
20:31:17 [phila]
eparsons: It'll be a parallel process. The timing won't work well. We'll have to run the processes in parallel
20:31:30 [phila]
eparsons: It will need to go through...
20:31:38 [phila]
SimonCox: I think it was under Geosemantics DWIG
20:31:58 [phila]
SimonCox: There is no DWIG because OGC deferred to the W3C process
20:32:08 [phila]
... There is a temporal DWIG invented subsequently
20:32:18 [phila]
eparsons: My feeling is that the OGC process might take longer
20:32:48 [phila]
eparsons: Scott might know a way to expedite this quickly
20:33:26 [phila]
SimonCox: Chris is in the temporal DWIG
20:33:33 [SimonCox]
20:33:37 [phila]
eparsons: We'll need Scott to work on this
20:33:58 [SimonCox]
20:35:01 [eparsons]
phila 2 calls with director one becoming CR one leaving CR status
20:35:46 [eparsons]
phila assuming all goes well becomes proposed recommendation similar to OGC process
20:36:24 [eparsons]
phila Should publish simultaneously
20:36:41 [eparsons]
phila final step can wait for OGC process
20:36:59 [phila]
eparsons: Anything we need to do today in terms of process?
20:39:15 [phila]
PROPOSED: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology at, subject to minor edits to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future implementation report
20:39:38 [phila]
PROPOSED: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology at, subject to minor edits to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future implementation report; W3T to take care of stylesheet issues
20:39:56 [eparsons]
20:39:57 [KJanowic]
20:39:57 [RaulGarciaCastro]
20:39:58 [phila]
eparsons: If you're willing to vote, please do so now...
20:39:58 [roba]
20:39:59 [MattPerry]
20:40:00 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:40:01 [ahaller2]
20:40:01 [Payam]
20:40:01 [billroberts]
20:40:02 [mlefranc]
20:40:11 [SimonCox]
20:40:14 [phila]
RESOLUTION: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology at, subject to minor edits to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future implementation report; W3T to take care of stylesheet issues
20:40:25 [phila]
PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Simon
20:40:28 [phila]
20:40:31 [eparsons]
20:40:33 [KJanowic]
20:40:34 [billroberts]
20:40:35 [MattPerry]
20:40:36 [roba]
20:40:37 [ahaller2]
20:40:42 [phila]
RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to Simon
20:40:50 [phila]
Topic: SSN
20:41:04 [phila]
eparsons: We'll follow the same process. Armin?
20:41:24 [SimonCox]
20:41:38 [phila]
ahaller2: We're aiming today for the final WG for wide review. Had enormous contributions from Simon and Maxime.
20:41:50 [phila]
... we're confident that the doc is ready for wide review
20:42:02 [phila]
... we worked for a long time on the ontologies but didn't spend a lot of time on the doc
20:42:15 [phila]
... We have been addressing the remaining issues
20:42:27 [phila]
... We have been considering keeping the sosa and ssn prefixes
20:42:34 [phila]
... So if you look at the doc
20:42:45 [phila]
... section 2 fig 1 describes what the doc includes
20:43:15 [phila]
... SSN imports SOSA and adds semantics.
20:43:25 [phila]
... Diagram specifies normative and non-normative sections
20:43:33 [phila]
... Lots of alignments
20:43:46 [phila]
... We pulled out the Dulce upper level ontology
20:43:59 [phila]
... So SSN no longer relies on it but you can use it if you want
20:44:07 [phila]
... Also have the SSNX alignment module
20:44:22 [phila]
... We want to put it at the [Porridge]
20:44:41 [phila]
... It's just the old ontology ith subclass/equiv relationships
20:44:56 [phila]
... Then we have some other alignments, esp to OGC ontologies
20:45:03 [phila]
... Also alignment to PROV
20:45:07 [SimonCox]
O&M Alignment module is normative?
20:45:20 [phila]
... Major part of the doc is the axomatisation
20:45:38 [phila]
... Had the benefit of editors in 3 time zones so work was round the clock
20:45:44 [phila]
... Better contrast etc.
20:46:14 [phila]
ahaller2: The doc is ready, we think for wide review
20:46:23 [phila]
... Some questions on what we can change in the review period
20:46:31 [phila]
... Can we add examples?
20:47:01 [phila]
ahaller2: We want to add some contributors
20:47:10 [phila]
... Not sure who to add
20:47:22 [KJanowic]
20:47:32 [eparsons]
ack next
20:47:39 [phila]
KJanowic: Thanks Armnin for the summary
20:47:41 [SimonCox]
20:48:00 [phila]
... One of the previous concerns was why we need SOSA and SSN. There's a section 3 that addresses this, scope, audience etc.
20:48:18 [phila]
... It explains why there is SOSA, why the alignments etc.
20:48:21 [eparsons]
ack next
20:48:47 [phila]
SimonCox: The O&M alignment module is, I think, normative, not informative
20:49:02 [phila]
... The significant motivation being that this is a a joint OGC/W3C project
20:49:07 [ahaller2]
+1 to normative O&M Alignment
20:49:37 [ahaller2]
We also have started on documenting the usage earlier, but it is outdated at the moment:
20:49:42 [phila]
roba: If it's normative do we need evidence of implementation of the alignment
20:50:28 [eparsons]
phila - you are a few weeks behind time, changes are mostly editiorial
20:50:52 [eparsons]
phila - we are getting ready for CR we need wide review so everything can change !
20:51:17 [eparsons]
phila Need wide review of stable document however...
20:52:00 [eparsons]
phila robs question what does normative mean for O&M how would you show ? Not sure...
20:52:13 [KJanowic]
IMHO, you cannot show implementation evidence of something like an alignment as this is a set of axioms that support entailment
20:52:29 [eparsons]
phila evidence unclear on what makes alignment normative
20:52:48 [KJanowic]
20:52:50 [eparsons]
phila WG can set exit criteria however...
20:53:01 [roba]
20:53:42 [eparsons]
phila evidence of SSN and SOSA terms more difficult than O&M ?
20:53:53 [eparsons]
phila Process not really defined for this...
20:54:01 [eparsons]
ack next
20:54:36 [phila]
KJanowic: If we have an axiom containing an O&M term, you're saying that you also have one of those SOSA term
20:55:09 [SimonCox]
Re O&M-SOSA alignment evidence - I believe Geoscience Australia has a sample description service that is based on O&M and also has an RDF interface
20:55:09 [eparsons]
ack next
20:55:17 [phila]
... We had the same conversation with Francois. He said that if you can say that it's just inferencing rules, then you prob don't need to show actual implementation
20:55:43 [phila]
roba: Some evidence of something using those rules, wowujld be good, and potentially doable. The challenge is showing *all* of the rules being used.
20:55:54 [phila]
20:56:01 [phila]
roba: If it works, it looks the same...
20:56:08 [KJanowic]
[I have to leave now to teach a class; I would like to vote +1 for all SSN/SOSA votes that push the document forward]
20:56:10 [ahaller2]
s/[Porridge]/old location of the SSN
20:56:49 [phila]
-> Wide Review
20:56:54 [mlefranc] ?
21:00:08 [mlefranc]
can we implement change requests during the wide review ?
21:00:30 [phila]
ahaller2: I think we should have a WD Tuesday week, but we can start colleting wide review now
21:02:26 [mlefranc]
we don't need a vote for that right ?
21:02:27 [phila]
eparsons: The most valuable bit now is reaching out to people to get reviews
21:02:38 [phila]
phila: No, mlefranc no need to vote for that
21:02:51 [phila]
Topic: Wrap up
21:02:52 [mlefranc]
excellent, thanks a lot
21:03:00 [phila]
eparsons: Huge effort that has gone on. Thanks very much everyone
21:03:15 [ahaller2]
thanks indeed to everyone for the work on SSN!
21:03:19 [ahaller2]
21:03:21 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:03:24 [mlefranc]
thanks, bye
21:03:42 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:03:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila