Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19 April 2017
eparsons: Full agenda, focused on the two docs
<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170405
<ahaller2> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<eparsons> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<Payam> +1
+1
Resolved: Approve last week's minutes
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<eparsons> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
eparsons: Invites Simon to talk through it
<SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/3
SimonCox: There are 3 open issues
… These relate to comments received from MSMcQ
… Comments registered in 2007 on the original version.
SimonCox: I dealt with almost all the comments last Thursday, leaving 3 for Chris to handle
… Seem to just need words around them, won't have any impact on the ontology
… I've not full finished liasising with Chris, but I don't think that should hold us up
SimonCox: Relative to versions you'll have seen before... I've done some rewriting of section 1, removing the issue
… At the bottom, the examples section, I've added 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9
… 5-7 was requested by a couple of people, aligning a cople of other ontologies wwith OWL Time
… 5-8 came from an Andrea who noted that DCAT made reference to OWL Time so I reflected that.
… 5-9 there's an incomplete list of external uses of OWL Time
SimonCox: I'm looking at other ontologies that import or just use OWL Time
… One document bug, there are 2 separate reference lists. One is managed by hand
… I planned to transfer those to the ReSpec config
… Will need some help from W3C to solve that
SimonCox: Want to add more to section 1 and then 5.9
… My judgement is that the doc is ready for the next stage
<eparsons> phila next stage candidate recommendation
<eparsons> phila CR means group is ready, wide review is complete.. seen evidence of this via email
<eparsons> phila Thanks to SimonCox great work...
<ahaller2> +1 for SimonCox' work on Time!
<KJanowic> Same here!
<eparsons> phila minor changes but these need to be done before CR, comments will need to be documented to director (table on wiki)
<eparsons> phila comments disposition teleco with director formal step
<eparsons> SimonCox Can do section 1 today, need help with stylesheets
<eparsons> SimonCox 5.9 replace with link
<eparsons> phila Implementation report location is up to you..
<eparsons> SimonCox Have email trails recorded just need to pull them out
<eparsons> SimonCox chris has three issues to work, first is intro text...
<eparsons> SimonCox Leap seconds is a Chris issue
<eparsons> phila Chris needs to record responses to issues & add to depostion
<eparsons> SimonCox 158 I will deal withm chris 161 and 163
eparsons: On process... wew haven't had the equivalent of published WDs in the way we have with other docs
… We'll need to prove that we have socialised, had enough eyes on it
… It's been almost entirely your work, Simon - and I agree that your work has been exemplary
… But wedo need to show that it's not just Simon working in a dark room
… How do we show that it's been reviewed?
… I sense that might be a weakness for us
<KJanowic> Can we solicit some of us that take another turn at the document with a track change of this on github?
<eparsons> phila Disposition will include evidence of bringing this work to broader attention
<eparsons> phila comments from 9 years ago is incredible !!
eparsons: I want to be sure that we can defend the document
… It's unfortunate that more members of the WG haven't had time to be as involved
… If the content that we have is sufficient, then great but I worry about it a little.
SimonCox: The nature of the product is a little different from the others
… What we have is a minor advnace from what we had before
eparsons: Your confidence and reputation goes a long way of course.
KJanowic: Would it help if we commented within the WG?
… Or would that create more pain - I'm talking about cosmetic changes
eparsons: I think at this point, cosmetic changes won't make a huge difference.
SimonCox: I've had substantial input from Josh, Simon and Raul
eparsons: That's recorded I guess so we can reference that
phila: What are the equivalent OGC steps?
SimonCox: It'll be an RFC
eparsons: It'll be a parallel process. The timing won't work well. We'll have to run the processes in parallel
eparsons: It will need to go through...
SimonCox: I think it was under Geosemantics DWIG
SimonCox: There is no DWIG because OGC deferred to the W3C process
… There is a temporal DWIG invented subsequently
eparsons: My feeling is that the OGC process might take longer
eparsons: Scott might know a way to expedite this quickly
SimonCox: Chris is in the temporal DWIG
<SimonCox> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=425
eparsons: We'll need Scott to work on this
<SimonCox> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=50
<eparsons> phila 2 calls with director one becoming CR one leaving CR status
<eparsons> phila assuming all goes well becomes proposed recommendation similar to OGC process
<eparsons> phila Should publish simultaneously
<eparsons> phila final step can wait for OGC process
eparsons: Anything we need to do today in terms of process?
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
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
<eparsons> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
eparsons: If you're willing to vote, please do so now...
<roba> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<Payam> +1
<billroberts> +1
<mlefranc> +1
<SimonCox> +1
Resolved: 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
PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Simon
+1
<eparsons> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<billroberts> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<roba> +1
<ahaller2> +1
Resolved: Vote of thanks to Simon
eparsons: We'll follow the same process. Armin?
<SimonCox> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/
ahaller2: We're aiming today for the final WG for wide review. Had enormous contributions from Simon and Maxime.
… we're confident that the doc is ready for wide review
… we worked for a long time on the ontologies but didn't spend a lot of time on the doc
… We have been addressing the remaining issues
… We have been considering keeping the sosa and ssn prefixes
… So if you look at the doc
… section 2 fig 1 describes what the doc includes
… SSN imports SOSA and adds semantics.
… Diagram specifies normative and non-normative sections
… Lots of alignments
… We pulled out the Dulce upper level ontology
… So SSN no longer relies on it but you can use it if you want
… Also have the SSNX alignment module
… We want to put it at the old location of the SSN
… It's just the old ontology ith subclass/equiv relationships
… Then we have some other alignments, esp to OGC ontologies
… Also alignment to PROV
<SimonCox> O&M Alignment module is normative?
ahaller2: Major part of the doc is the axomatisation
… Had the benefit of editors in 3 time zones so work was round the clock
… Better contrast etc.
ahaller2: The doc is ready, we think for wide review
… Some questions on what we can change in the review period
… Can we add examples?
ahaller2: We want to add some contributors
… Not sure who to add
KJanowic: Thanks Armnin for the summary
… One of the previous concerns was why we need SOSA and SSN. There's a section 3 that addresses this, scope, audience etc.
… It explains why there is SOSA, why the alignments etc.
SimonCox: The O&M alignment module is, I think, normative, not informative
… The significant motivation being that this is a a joint OGC/W3C project
<ahaller2> +1 to normative O&M Alignment
<ahaller2> We also have started on documenting the usage earlier, but it is outdated at the moment: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
roba: If it's normative do we need evidence of implementation of the alignment
<eparsons> phila - you are a few weeks behind time, changes are mostly editiorial
<eparsons> phila - we are getting ready for CR we need wide review so everything can change !
<eparsons> phila Need wide review of stable document however...
<eparsons> phila robs question what does normative mean for O&M how would you show ? Not sure...
<KJanowic> IMHO, you cannot show implementation evidence of something like an alignment as this is a set of axioms that support entailment
<eparsons> phila evidence unclear on what makes alignment normative
<eparsons> phila WG can set exit criteria however...
<eparsons> phila evidence of SSN and SOSA terms more difficult than O&M ?
<eparsons> phila Process not really defined for this...
KJanowic: If we have an axiom containing an O&M term, you're saying that you also have one of those SOSA term
<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
KJanowic: 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
roba: Some evidence of something using those rules, would be good, and potentially doable. The challenge is showing *all* of the rules being used.
roba: If it works, it looks the same...
<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]
<mlefranc> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/ ?
<mlefranc> can we implement change requests during the wide review ?
ahaller2: I think we should have a WD Tuesday week, but we can start colleting wide review now
<mlefranc> we don't need a vote for that right ?
eparsons: The most valuable bit now is reaching out to people to get reviews
phila: No, mlefranc no need to vote for that
<mlefranc> excellent, thanks a lot
eparsons: Huge effort that has gone on. Thanks very much everyone
<ahaller2> thanks indeed to everyone for the work on SSN!
<ahaller2> bye
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<mlefranc> thanks, bye