IRC log of sdwssn on 2017-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:58:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
19:58:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:58:26 [mlefranc]
mlefranc has joined #sdwssn
19:58:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
19:58:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdwssn
19:58:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
19:58:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
19:58:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:58:30 [trackbot]
Date: 02 May 2017
19:58:46 [ahaller2]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:58:55 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
19:59:23 [DanhLePhuoc]
DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
19:59:31 [mlefranc]
20:02:39 [KJanowic]
KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
20:02:59 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
20:03:26 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
20:03:45 [KJanowic]
so 8:00 UTC after all
20:03:49 [KJanowic]
20:04:18 [DanhLePhuoc]
present+ DanhLePhuoc
20:04:29 [ClausStadler]
ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
20:04:34 [SimonCox]
20:04:48 [RaulGarciaCastro]
present+ RaulGarciaCastro
20:05:28 [ahaller2]
scribe: mlefranc
20:05:31 [ahaller2]
scribenick: mlefranc
20:05:45 [ahaller2]
topic: Approving last meeting's minutes
20:05:52 [ahaller2]
20:05:53 [mlefranc]
20:05:55 [SimonCox]
20:05:55 [RaulGarciaCastro]
20:06:11 [KJanowic]
20:06:19 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:06:22 [ahaller2]
topic: Patent Call
20:06:53 [ahaller2]
topic: Progress on Action 334 to start a wiki page that describes option on aligning new observation with DUL
20:07:07 [KJanowic]
20:07:10 [ahaller2]
20:07:14 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:07:24 [KJanowic]
20:08:27 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: oldssn:Observation subclassof dul:Situation, now ssn:Observation is aligned with dul:event
20:08:39 [mlefranc]
... dul:situation subclassof event, which is disjoint from event
20:08:51 [ClausStadler]
present+ ClausStadler
20:09:00 [mlefranc]
... meaning oldssn:Observation equivalent with ssn:Observation cannot hold
20:09:08 [mlefranc]
... so where do we break ?
20:09:25 [mlefranc]
... we decided that oldssn would be where we break,
20:09:45 [mlefranc]
... because ssn is going to be the standard, and withstand longer
20:10:27 [mlefranc]
... there are now more little subtelties
20:10:32 [mlefranc]
... for example platform
20:11:09 [mlefranc]
... about the predicates: sixth bullet point, ...
20:11:55 [mlefranc]
... alignement of properties with associatedWith don't bring anything, except everything becomes instance of dul:Entity
20:12:32 [mlefranc]
... solution proposed: we can used general concepts and intuition axioms: we avoid unguarded domain and range restrictions
20:12:54 [mlefranc]
... so although we can't say oldssn:Observation equivalent with ssn:Observation,
20:13:32 [mlefranc]
... we could say: for all those things that have some sosa:hasResult property and is not a oldssn:Observation, then it is a sosa:Observation
20:13:58 [mlefranc]
... so we create local alignments
20:13:59 [ahaller2]
+1 for KJanowic axioms!
20:14:02 [ahaller2]
20:14:37 [ahaller2]
20:14:46 [KJanowic]
and Result and Deployment (which are not covered or broken, respectively)
20:14:51 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: in favour to add local alignments
20:14:59 [ahaller2]
20:15:05 [KJanowic]
20:15:11 [SimonCox]
Is it possible that the difficulty with the DUL alignment is (a) a misalignment in the original SSN-DUL design, or (b) an underlying difficulty in DUL?
20:15:40 [KJanowic]
This is the axiom: \exists old-ssn: observationResult.T \sqcap \not old-ssn:Observation \sqsubseteq SOSA:Observation
20:15:44 [ahaller2]
20:15:50 [mlefranc]
mlefranc: would like to see implementation
20:15:53 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:16:02 [SimonCox]
If either of these is true, then I am not so interested in DUL 'getting in the way' of SSN/SOSA moving forward ...
20:17:21 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: because we don't have domain and range axioms for properties, we can say: if someone uses a property that links x to y
20:17:50 [ahaller2]
20:18:05 [mlefranc]
... and x is not asserted to be a oldssn: something,
20:18:29 [mlefranc]
... then we could align x and y to the proper dul class
20:18:31 [ahaller2]
ack ahaller
20:18:40 [mlefranc]
* please check my minutes
20:18:55 [KJanowic]
20:19:23 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: would be a partial alignment
20:19:44 [mlefranc]
... users of oldssn would need to remove part of their triples
20:20:32 [mlefranc]
20:20:36 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:20:38 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:20:41 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:21:22 [KJanowic]
+1 to that!!!
20:22:00 [KJanowic]
20:22:22 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
20:22:56 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: we can have a note in the old observation class that says: instances of oldssn:Observation should migrate to ssn:Observation
20:23:15 [mlefranc]
mlefranc: there may be side effects, we will have to wait for the wide review.
20:23:31 [ahaller2]
20:23:42 [mlefranc]
... don't really know actual oldssn implementations that heavily rely on the alignment to dul
20:24:09 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:24:15 [mlefranc]
DanhLePhuoc: I don't know if we addressed all the communities that have used ssn so far
20:24:25 [mlefranc]
... we need to wait for people to speak up
20:25:09 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:25:15 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: I think it's better to help people to migrate
20:25:48 [mlefranc]
... three options for alignment: 1 no alignemnt 2 partial alignment, 3 migration
20:26:08 [ahaller2]
ack ahaller
20:26:27 [SimonCox]
so KJanowic suggest that it is OK to say 'these parts can be aligned, but those can't'
20:26:44 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: if we don't align to dul anymore,
20:26:54 [KJanowic]
I agree!
20:27:05 [KJanowic]
Yes, this is why I favor breaking the old not the new
20:27:20 [ahaller2]
20:27:24 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
20:27:42 [mlefranc]
... then for people that use the old ssn - dul alignment, it may happen that instance of new ssn:Observation becomes instance of dul:Situation
20:28:05 [KJanowic]
+1 to Danh
20:28:09 [ahaller2]
+1 to some note to tell you how to migrate
20:28:11 [mlefranc]
DanhLePhuoc: let's do the alignment that is safe, and write a note about the gray area
20:28:56 [mlefranc]
... current alignment covers 70% of terms,
20:29:02 [KJanowic]
This is exactly the partial alignment that the axiom does
20:29:16 [mlefranc]
... for the rest, people can use rules, or do something else
20:29:22 [mlefranc]
20:29:52 [KJanowic]
20:30:44 [ahaller2]
ACTION: Implement the proposed axiom to partially align observationResults of oldSSN to new SSN in the ontology files
20:30:44 [trackbot]
Error finding 'Implement'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
20:30:47 [ahaller2]
20:30:57 [ahaller2]
topic: Progress on Action 335 and work plan for separate Note with Examples
20:31:12 [ahaller2]
20:31:44 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: removed that from the document, wanted to discuss that here
20:32:16 [KJanowic]
20:32:26 [mlefranc]
... few mistakes spotted after the document was published in the TR space
20:32:35 [ahaller2]
close ACTION-335
20:32:35 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-335.
20:32:40 [mlefranc]
... about figures for instance
20:32:40 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:32:46 [mlefranc]
20:33:14 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: aren't all alignemnt non-normative ?
20:33:21 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: yes, but the one to o&m
20:33:40 [mlefranc]
... o&m implementation may become ssn implementation evidence
20:33:56 [mlefranc]
... the graphs must represent that
20:34:34 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: but Phil told us that may not help to convince the director
20:34:46 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: that's a gray area
20:35:21 [mlefranc]
SimonCox: I can't advise on that
20:35:39 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: we need Phil and Francois to help here
20:35:42 [ahaller2]
20:36:09 [KJanowic]
20:36:17 [mlefranc]
SimonCox: at least things that are marked at risk can be dropped so that we can drop them later without going back to candidaterec track
20:36:33 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:38:02 [mlefranc]
mlefranc: is it a good idea to have no examples ? recent discussions show that examples are crucial
20:38:24 [ahaller2]
20:38:44 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: examples may be incorporated lated, the goal here is to freeze the change list
20:38:46 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:39:22 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: asking SimonCox about previous features at risk
20:39:33 [ahaller2]
close Action 334
20:39:45 [ahaller2]
close action-334
20:39:45 [trackbot]
Closed action-334.
20:39:57 [mlefranc]
close ACTION-334
20:39:57 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-334.
20:40:29 [mlefranc]
SimonCox: new classes and properties in new OWL time ontology have no implementation yet,
20:40:54 [mlefranc]
... so we needed to mark those that have been discussed and introduced the latest: "at risk"
20:41:19 [mlefranc]
... to avoid that the whole documents fails passing the implementation evidence test
20:41:41 [KJanowic]
thanks a lot!
20:41:45 [ahaller2]
topic: What are properties/classes at risk (e.g. ssn:qualityOfObservation). Are there others?
20:42:32 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: working draft will be early May, so we can start identifying classes and properties that are at risk
20:43:14 [ahaller2]
20:43:20 [RaulGarciaCastro]
20:43:23 [ahaller2]
ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:44:24 [mlefranc]
RaulGarciaCastro: if ssn:qualityOfObservation is marked at risk and has no implementation evidence, will it be removed, or become non-normative ?
20:44:54 [mlefranc]
SimonCox: bits of the ontology may be non-normative
20:44:58 [mlefranc]
20:45:46 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: if it's confusing in the working draft, why would you include them in the ontology ?
20:46:03 [mlefranc]
SimonCox: or provide a second ontology that includes non-normative aixoms ?
20:46:09 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: yes
20:46:19 [ahaller2]
20:46:23 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
20:47:58 [ahaller2]
20:48:17 [KJanowic]
20:48:31 [mlefranc]
mlefranc: let's be optimistic here, if some term that is marked at risk has no implementation evidence, we might be able to move them in a "non-normative" section
20:49:16 [DanhLePhuoc]
20:49:23 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: we may mark some term at risk because we did not have enough time to discuss them
20:49:34 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
20:50:00 [mlefranc]
... we will have to ask Phil and Francois about if we need to remove terms that are dropped from the ontology
20:50:57 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: showing that we take wide review comments into account may be actually more important that we supposed yet
20:51:21 [mlefranc]
... we need to have more reviews, and show the Director that we took them into account
20:51:24 [KJanowic]
sorry for jumping ahead
20:52:02 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: maybe send emails to all ssn users individually
20:52:47 [ahaller2]
20:52:59 [mlefranc]
... for example recent email triggered issue
20:53:06 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
20:53:13 [mlefranc]'s very important that we address these issues as fast as possible
20:53:43 [mlefranc]
DanhLePhuoc: I sent review requests to,
20:54:22 [ScottSimmons]
ScottSimmons has joined #sdwssn
20:54:27 [DanhLePhuoc]!topic/sdo-iot-sync/132-dZf0kTU
20:54:48 [mlefranc]
... and WoT-LD taskforce. Which is very crowded, I hope we will receive reviews soon
20:55:03 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: of course reviewing takes some time
20:55:44 [mlefranc]
DanhLePhuoc: in terms of implementation, if a new concept has a equivalentClass/equivalentProperty to the old one,
20:55:56 [mlefranc]
20:56:10 [ScottSimmons]
present+ ScottSimmons
20:56:16 [mlefranc]
... then old ssn data that used that concept will become implementation evidence for the new term
20:56:44 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: we will just mark classes and properties at risk if they had no impelmentation evidence
20:56:54 [mlefranc]
20:57:08 [ahaller2]
ACTION: ahaller2 to mark classes/properties as at risk in the ED
20:57:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-346 - Mark classes/properties as at risk in the ed [on Armin Haller - due 2017-05-09].
20:57:48 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: I will send email to original users of SSN
20:57:57 [ahaller2]
ACTION: ahaller2 to invite original users of SSN via personal email to review the document
20:57:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-347 - Invite original users of ssn via personal email to review the document [on Armin Haller - due 2017-05-09].
20:58:22 [ahaller2]
20:58:28 [mlefranc]
... evidence that we covered public review comments is important
20:58:58 [ahaller2]
topic: Feedback from Sergio José Rodríguez Méndez and raised in response
21:01:10 [ahaller2]
21:02:15 [mlefranc]
ahaller2: the SAN ontology is parallel to core SSO in SSN, but for actuators
21:02:42 [mlefranc]
... we're ok to introduce effect class ?
21:02:43 [KJanowic]
btw,weused san as input for out actuator work in SOSA
21:02:48 [ahaller2]
21:02:57 [roba]
roba has joined #sdwssn
21:02:58 [KJanowic]
21:03:18 [ahaller2]
ack KJanowic
21:03:39 [mlefranc]
KJanowic: we used that actuator pattern, we have proof for that in the wiki
21:04:23 [mlefranc]
... do we really want to introduce Effect now, we know that Stimulus can't have instances
21:04:52 [mlefranc]
... every term needs implementation evidence or discussion to explain why they can't have
21:04:58 [ahaller2]
21:05:05 [KJanowic]
21:05:13 [mlefranc]
... if we don't need to have implementation evidence, then ok to introduce them. Else, no
21:05:29 [mlefranc]
21:05:54 [KJanowic]
Can you asign an action to me? also for the dul axiomatization?
21:05:56 [ahaller2]
ACTION: KJanowic to send email to Phil and Francois to clarify the need for implementation evidence for superclasses and documentation classes
21:05:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-348 - Send email to phil and francois to clarify the need for implementation evidence for superclasses and documentation classes [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2017-05-09].
21:06:00 [ahaller2]
21:06:14 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:06:15 [mlefranc]
Fig 2. in ---> Sensor produces Result vs Actuator consumes Input
21:07:32 [KJanowic]
IMHO, it is too late to introduce major changes. we need to move on
21:09:01 [ahaller2]
21:09:09 [KJanowic]
[I have to leave now]
21:09:43 [ahaller2]
21:10:12 [ahaller2]
topic: Should ssn:hasProperty and ssn:isPropertyOf be included in SOSA?
21:10:58 [ahaller2]
scribe: roba
21:11:01 [ahaller2]
scribenick: roba
21:11:13 [mlefranc]
21:12:27 [roba]
RaulGarcioCastro: foi is related to system only via Observtion class.
21:13:11 [roba]
...proposal is to move property to SOSA to allow sensors to be related to features without Observation
21:13:59 [mlefranc]
21:14:06 [roba]
mlefranc: question is whether observableProperty is a "general" property such as speed, or a feature property :"speed of this car"
21:15:01 [SimonCox]
21:16:01 [roba]
...withous hasProperty SOSA cannot support this,
21:16:52 [roba]
armin: agree - users of SOSA must use the spedific property as documented. This doesnt solve the competency question
21:17:04 [SimonCox]
21:17:08 [roba]
...naming of properties is "pretty bad"
21:17:12 [ahaller2]
21:17:15 [ahaller2]
ack SimonCox
21:18:25 [roba]
SimonCox: when looking at sets of properties - are they individuals or properties of classes? QUDT has both.. bigger debate than here
21:18:52 [RaulGarciaCastro]
It is not about moving Property
21:18:59 [RaulGarciaCastro]
Property can stay at SSN
21:19:26 [roba]
... re move Property to SOSA - judgement re weight of SOSA
21:19:44 [mlefranc]
21:20:04 [roba]
...too much of a change at this point
21:21:26 [roba]
...type of property without knowing the feature of interest - but can also use features such as "the World" - properties cannot exist without Features in the OGC reference model.
21:21:45 [ahaller2]
21:21:48 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:23:12 [roba]
mlefranc: O&M and SSN were well aligned - the only question is whether hasProperty and isProperty to SOSA would enable SOSA to cover some important cases
21:23:47 [mlefranc]
21:24:03 [roba]
ahaller2: discussion was these names were confusing - would prefer new name
21:24:13 [ahaller2]
21:24:17 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:25:04 [roba]
mlefranc: ok to rename, "quality" would be perceived as disjoint from "quantity" - first step is to move, second step is to renames
21:25:18 [roba]
21:25:33 [ahaller2]
21:26:29 [SimonCox]
BTW - we have some implementation evidence on SOSA samples, sampling, sampler (and sample-sample relationships!) emerging by our friends at Geoscience Australia
21:26:34 [ahaller2]
21:27:15 [roba]
ahaller2: action item to create a PR - to Raul. - for discussion
21:27:35 [ahaller2]
ACTION: RaulGarciaCastro to issues pull request to move isPropertyOf hasProperty to SOSA, and propose different names/labels
21:27:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-349 - Issues pull request to move ispropertyof hasproperty to sosa, and propose different names/labels [on Raúl García Castro - due 2017-05-09].
21:27:38 [ahaller2]
21:29:53 [roba]
discussion of examples - updating PR against feedback (please paste in link to the feddback being discussed)
21:31:37 [ahaller2]
ACTION: mlefranc to aggregate his examples from an earlier pull request and introduce them in the beginning of each section with the Observation/Actuation/Sampling figures
21:31:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-350 - Aggregate his examples from an earlier pull request and introduce them in the beginning of each section with the observation/actuation/sampling figures [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-05-09].
21:31:47 [ahaller2]
21:31:50 [ahaller2]
topic: Work plan for implementation evidence
21:32:14 [ahaller2]
21:32:36 [roba]
ahaller2: who do we know is doing an implementation?
21:32:41 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:33:06 [roba]
SimonCox: will help GA by review. After Review will be update of an operational system.
21:33:10 [ahaller2]
ACTION: Simon to collaborate with Nicholas Car from Geoscience Australia on the SOSA implementation in their operational system
21:33:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-351 - Collaborate with nicholas car from geoscience australia on the sosa implementation in their operational system [on Simon Cox - due 2017-05-09].
21:33:22 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:33:53 [roba]
DanhLePhuoc: will implement one NOAA dataset
21:34:11 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:34:27 [ahaller2]
ACTION: DanhLePhuoc to coordinate one implementation evidence around SOSA/SSN in the NOAA dataset
21:34:27 [trackbot]
Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
21:34:28 [ahaller2]
21:34:31 [mlefranc]
21:34:37 [roba]
...20K+ weather observations
21:36:04 [roba]
ahaller2: will update historical climate dataset - small subset of terms
21:36:26 [roba]
...timeline is about 6 weeks
21:36:46 [ahaller2]
ACTION: ahaller2 to implement SSN new in
21:36:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-352 - Implement ssn new in [on Armin Haller - due 2017-05-09].
21:37:16 [roba]
ClausStadler: not sure if my project will be available in time
21:37:19 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:37:34 [ahaller2]
ack mlefranc
21:39:08 [ahaller2]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:40:41 [mlefranc]
Modules to be covered once or twice: actuations / input-output / systems and subsystems / platforms and deployments / systemcapabilities, operatingranges, survivalranges
21:40:57 [ahaller2]
ACTION: DanhLePhuoc to talk to people in Siemens to have an implementation in one of their Plugfests
21:40:57 [trackbot]
Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
21:41:33 [ahaller2]
ACTIOn: danh to talk to people in Siemens to have an implementation in one of their Plugfests
21:41:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-353 - Talk to people in siemens to have an implementation in one of their plugfests [on Danh Le Phuoc - due 2017-05-09].
21:41:43 [roba]
DanhLePhuoc: will explore possibilities in ioT plugfests
21:41:46 [ahaller2]
21:42:17 [ahaller2]
21:42:51 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:43:01 [mlefranc]
21:43:02 [ahaller2]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ahaller2
21:43:09 [SimonCox]
make the minutes!
21:43:13 [ahaller2]
21:57:24 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn