19:48:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
19:48:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-irc
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> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170419
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> present+
20:00:11 <roba> roba has joined #sdw
20:00:17 <eparsons> Present+ eparsons
20:01:04 <roba> present+
20:01:20 <phila> present+
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> present+
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> present+
20:05:33 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:05:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-minutes.html 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> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170405
20:07:22 <ahaller2> +1
20:07:22 <KJanowic> +1
20:07:26 <eparsons> +1
20:07:30 <SimonCox> +1
20:07:30 <MattPerry> +1
20:07:32 <Payam> +1
20:07:34 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdw-minutes Last call minutes
20:07:41 <phila> +1
20:07:42 <eparsons> RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes
20:07:43 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:07:50 <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
20:07:51 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:08:01 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:08:45 <phila> Topic: Time Ontology
20:09:06 <eparsons> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
20:09:21 <phila> eparsons: Invites Simon to talk through it
20:09:24 <SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/3
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> q?
20:15:07 <phila> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=425
20:33:37 <phila> eparsons: We'll need Scott to work on this
20:33:58 <SimonCox> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=50
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 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, 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 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, 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> +1
20:39:57 <KJanowic> +1
20:39:57 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:39:58 <phila> eparsons: If you're willing to vote, please do so now...
20:39:58 <roba> +1
20:39:59 <MattPerry> +1
20:40:00 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:40:01 <ahaller2> +1
20:40:01 <Payam> +1
20:40:01 <billroberts> +1
20:40:02 <mlefranc> +1
20:40:11 <SimonCox> +1
20:40:14 <phila> RESOLUTION: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, 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> +1
20:40:31 <eparsons> +1
20:40:33 <KJanowic> +1
20:40:34 <billroberts> +1
20:40:35 <MattPerry> +1
20:40:36 <roba> +1
20:40:37 <ahaller2> +1
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> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/
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> q+
20:47:32 <eparsons> ack next
20:47:39 <phila> KJanowic: Thanks Armnin for the summary
20:47:41 <SimonCox> q+
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: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
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> q+
20:52:50 <eparsons> phila WG can set exit criteria however...
20:53:01 <roba> q+
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> s/wowujld/would/
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> -> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review Wide Review
20:56:54 <mlefranc> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/ ?
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> bye
21:03:21 <RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
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 http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-minutes.html phila