19:58:25 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 19:58:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/02-sdwssn-irc 19:58:26 mlefranc has joined #sdwssn 19:58:27 RRSAgent, make logs world 19:58:27 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 19:58:29 Zakim, this will be SDW 19:58:29 ok, trackbot 19:58:30 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 19:58:30 Date: 02 May 2017 19:58:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:58:55 present+ ahaller2 19:59:23 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn 19:59:31 present+ 20:02:39 KJanowic has joined #sdwssn 20:02:59 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 20:03:26 SimonCox has joined #sdwssn 20:03:45 so 8:00 UTC after all 20:03:49 present+ 20:04:18 present+ DanhLePhuoc 20:04:29 ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn 20:04:34 present+ 20:04:48 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 20:05:28 scribe: mlefranc 20:05:31 scribenick: mlefranc 20:05:45 topic: Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-sdwssn-minutes 20:05:52 +1 20:05:53 +1 20:05:55 +1 20:05:55 +1 20:06:11 +1 20:06:19 +1 20:06:22 topic: Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 20:06:53 topic: Progress on Action 334 to start a wiki page that describes option on aligning new observation with DUL 20:07:07 q+ 20:07:10 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/334 20:07:14 ack KJanowic 20:07:24 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Events_and_Situations#Events.2C_Actions.2C_and_Situations 20:08:27 KJanowic: oldssn:Observation subclassof dul:Situation, now ssn:Observation is aligned with dul:event 20:08:39 ... dul:situation subclassof event, which is disjoint from event 20:08:51 present+ ClausStadler 20:09:00 ... meaning oldssn:Observation equivalent with ssn:Observation cannot hold 20:09:08 ... so where do we break ? 20:09:25 ... we decided that oldssn would be where we break, 20:09:45 ... because ssn is going to be the standard, and withstand longer 20:10:27 ... there are now more little subtelties 20:10:32 ... for example platform 20:11:09 ... about the predicates: sixth bullet point, ... 20:11:55 ... alignement of properties with associatedWith don't bring anything, except everything becomes instance of dul:Entity 20:12:32 ... solution proposed: we can used general concepts and intuition axioms: we avoid unguarded domain and range restrictions 20:12:54 ... so although we can't say oldssn:Observation equivalent with ssn:Observation, 20:13:32 ... 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 ... so we create local alignments 20:13:59 +1 for KJanowic axioms! 20:14:02 q? 20:14:37 q? 20:14:46 and Result and Deployment (which are not covered or broken, respectively) 20:14:51 ahaller2: in favour to add local alignments 20:14:59 q? 20:15:05 q+ 20:15:11 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 This is the axiom: \exists old-ssn: observationResult.T \sqcap \not old-ssn:Observation \sqsubseteq SOSA:Observation 20:15:44 q? 20:15:50 mlefranc: would like to see implementation 20:15:53 ack KJanowic 20:16:02 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 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 q+ 20:18:05 ... and x is not asserted to be a oldssn: something, 20:18:29 ... then we could align x and y to the proper dul class 20:18:31 ack ahaller 20:18:40 * please check my minutes 20:18:55 q+ 20:19:23 KJanowic: would be a partial alignment 20:19:44 ... users of oldssn would need to remove part of their triples 20:20:32 q+ 20:20:36 ack KJanowic 20:20:38 ack mlefranc 20:20:41 q+ 20:21:22 +1 to that!!! 20:22:00 q+ 20:22:22 ack DanhLePhuoc 20:22:56 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: there may be side effects, we will have to wait for the wide review. 20:23:31 q+ 20:23:42 ... don't really know actual oldssn implementations that heavily rely on the alignment to dul 20:24:09 ack KJanowic 20:24:15 DanhLePhuoc: I don't know if we addressed all the communities that have used ssn so far 20:24:25 ... we need to wait for people to speak up 20:25:09 +q 20:25:15 KJanowic: I think it's better to help people to migrate 20:25:48 ... three options for alignment: 1 no alignemnt 2 partial alignment, 3 migration 20:26:08 ack ahaller 20:26:27 so KJanowic suggest that it is OK to say 'these parts can be aligned, but those can't' 20:26:44 ahaller2: if we don't align to dul anymore, 20:26:54 I agree! 20:27:05 Yes, this is why I favor breaking the old not the new 20:27:20 q? 20:27:24 ack DanhLePhuoc 20:27:42 ... 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 +1 to Danh 20:28:09 +1 to some note to tell you how to migrate 20:28:11 DanhLePhuoc: let's do the alignment that is safe, and write a note about the gray area 20:28:56 ... current alignment covers 70% of terms, 20:29:02 This is exactly the partial alignment that the axiom does 20:29:16 ... for the rest, people can use rules, or do something else 20:29:22 +1 20:29:52 Okay 20:30:44 ACTION: Implement the proposed axiom to partially align observationResults of oldSSN to new SSN in the ontology files 20:30:44 Error finding 'Implement'. You can review and register nicknames at . 20:30:47 q? 20:30:57 topic: Progress on Action 335 and work plan for separate Note with Examples 20:31:12 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/335 20:31:44 ahaller2: removed that from the document, wanted to discuss that here 20:32:16 q+ 20:32:26 ... few mistakes spotted after the document was published in the TR space 20:32:35 close ACTION-335 20:32:35 Closed ACTION-335. 20:32:40 ... about figures for instance 20:32:40 ack KJanowic 20:32:46 q+ 20:33:14 KJanowic: aren't all alignemnt non-normative ? 20:33:21 ahaller2: yes, but the one to o&m 20:33:40 ... o&m implementation may become ssn implementation evidence 20:33:56 ... the graphs must represent that 20:34:34 KJanowic: but Phil told us that may not help to convince the director 20:34:46 ahaller2: that's a gray area 20:35:21 SimonCox: I can't advise on that 20:35:39 ahaller2: we need Phil and Francois to help here 20:35:42 q? 20:36:09 q+ 20:36:17 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 ack mlefranc 20:38:02 mlefranc: is it a good idea to have no examples ? recent discussions show that examples are crucial 20:38:24 q? 20:38:44 ahaller2: examples may be incorporated lated, the goal here is to freeze the change list 20:38:46 ack KJanowic 20:39:22 KJanowic: asking SimonCox about previous features at risk 20:39:33 close Action 334 20:39:45 close action-334 20:39:45 Closed action-334. 20:39:57 close ACTION-334 20:39:57 Closed ACTION-334. 20:40:29 SimonCox: new classes and properties in new OWL time ontology have no implementation yet, 20:40:54 ... so we needed to mark those that have been discussed and introduced the latest: "at risk" 20:41:19 ... to avoid that the whole documents fails passing the implementation evidence test 20:41:41 thanks a lot! 20:41:45 topic: What are properties/classes at risk (e.g. ssn:qualityOfObservation). Are there others? 20:42:32 ahaller2: working draft will be early May, so we can start identifying classes and properties that are at risk 20:43:14 q? 20:43:20 q+ 20:43:23 ack RaulGarciaCastro 20:44:24 RaulGarciaCastro: if ssn:qualityOfObservation is marked at risk and has no implementation evidence, will it be removed, or become non-normative ? 20:44:54 SimonCox: bits of the ontology may be non-normative 20:44:58 q+ 20:45:46 ahaller2: if it's confusing in the working draft, why would you include them in the ontology ? 20:46:03 SimonCox: or provide a second ontology that includes non-normative aixoms ? 20:46:09 ahaller2: yes 20:46:19 q? 20:46:23 ack mlefranc 20:47:58 q? 20:48:17 q+ 20:48:31 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 +q 20:49:23 ahaller2: we may mark some term at risk because we did not have enough time to discuss them 20:49:34 ack KJanowic 20:50:00 ... we will have to ask Phil and Francois about if we need to remove terms that are dropped from the ontology 20:50:57 KJanowic: showing that we take wide review comments into account may be actually more important that we supposed yet 20:51:21 ... we need to have more reviews, and show the Director that we took them into account 20:51:24 sorry for jumping ahead 20:52:02 ahaller2: maybe send emails to all ssn users individually 20:52:47 q? 20:52:59 ... for example recent email triggered issue https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/187 20:53:06 ack DanhLePhuoc 20:53:13 ...it's very important that we address these issues as fast as possible 20:53:43 DanhLePhuoc: I sent review requests to iot.schema.org, 20:54:22 ScottSimmons has joined #sdwssn 20:54:27 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sdo-iot-sync/132-dZf0kTU 20:54:48 ... and WoT-LD taskforce. Which is very crowded, I hope we will receive reviews soon 20:55:03 ahaller2: of course reviewing takes some time 20:55:44 DanhLePhuoc: in terms of implementation, if a new concept has a equivalentClass/equivalentProperty to the old one, 20:55:56 q+ 20:56:10 present+ ScottSimmons 20:56:16 ... then old ssn data that used that concept will become implementation evidence for the new term 20:56:44 ahaller2: we will just mark classes and properties at risk if they had no impelmentation evidence 20:56:54 q- 20:57:08 ACTION: ahaller2 to mark classes/properties as at risk in the ED 20:57:10 Created ACTION-346 - Mark classes/properties as at risk in the ed [on Armin Haller - due 2017-05-09]. 20:57:48 ahaller2: I will send email to original users of SSN 20:57:57 ACTION: ahaller2 to invite original users of SSN via personal email to review the document 20:57:57 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 q? 20:58:28 ... evidence that we covered public review comments is important 20:58:58 topic: Feedback from Sergio José Rodríguez Méndez and https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/187 raised in response 21:01:10 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467853 21:02:15 ahaller2: the SAN ontology is parallel to core SSO in SSN, but for actuators 21:02:42 ... we're ok to introduce effect class ? 21:02:43 btw,weused san as input for out actuator work in SOSA 21:02:48 q? 21:02:57 roba has joined #sdwssn 21:02:58 q+ 21:03:18 ack KJanowic 21:03:39 KJanowic: we used that actuator pattern, we have proof for that in the wiki 21:04:23 ... do we really want to introduce Effect now, we know that Stimulus can't have instances 21:04:52 ... every term needs implementation evidence or discussion to explain why they can't have 21:04:58 q? 21:05:05 okay 21:05:13 ... if we don't need to have implementation evidence, then ok to introduce them. Else, no 21:05:29 q+ 21:05:54 Can you asign an action to me? also for the dul axiomatization? 21:05:56 ACTION: KJanowic to send email to Phil and Francois to clarify the need for implementation evidence for superclasses and documentation classes 21:05:57 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 q? 21:06:14 ack mlefranc 21:06:15 Fig 2. in https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467853/document ---> Sensor produces Result vs Actuator consumes Input 21:07:32 IMHO, it is too late to introduce major changes. we need to move on 21:09:01 q? 21:09:09 [I have to leave now] 21:09:43 q? 21:10:12 topic: Should ssn:hasProperty and ssn:isPropertyOf be included in SOSA? 21:10:58 scribe: roba 21:11:01 scribenick: roba 21:11:13 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Linking_Systems_and_Features_of_Interest 21:12:27 RaulGarcioCastro: foi is related to system only via Observtion class. 21:13:11 ...proposal is to move property to SOSA to allow sensors to be related to features without Observation 21:13:59 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Link_between_FeatureOfInterest_and_xxxProperty#What_is_an_instances_of_ssn:Property_.3F 21:14:06 mlefranc: question is whether observableProperty is a "general" property such as speed, or a feature property :"speed of this car" 21:15:01 q+ 21:16:01 ...withous hasProperty SOSA cannot support this, 21:16:52 armin: agree - users of SOSA must use the spedific property as documented. This doesnt solve the competency question 21:17:04 http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/environment/_property 21:17:08 ...naming of properties is "pretty bad" 21:17:12 q? 21:17:15 ack SimonCox 21:18:25 SimonCox: when looking at sets of properties - are they individuals or properties of classes? QUDT has both.. bigger debate than here 21:18:52 It is not about moving Property 21:18:59 Property can stay at SSN 21:19:26 ... re move Property to SOSA - judgement re weight of SOSA 21:19:44 q+ 21:20:04 ...too much of a change at this point 21:21:26 ...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 q? 21:21:48 ack mlefranc 21:23:12 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 q+ 21:24:03 ahaller2: discussion was these names were confusing - would prefer new name 21:24:13 q? 21:24:17 ack mlefranc 21:25:04 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 s/renames/rename/ 21:25:33 q? 21:26:29 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 q? 21:27:15 ahaller2: action item to create a PR - to Raul. - for discussion 21:27:35 ACTION: RaulGarciaCastro to issues pull request to move isPropertyOf hasProperty to SOSA, and propose different names/labels 21:27:35 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 q? 21:29:53 discussion of examples - updating PR against feedback (please paste in link to the feddback being discussed) 21:31:37 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 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 q? 21:31:50 topic: Work plan for implementation evidence http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/ 21:32:14 q? 21:32:36 ahaller2: who do we know is doing an implementation? 21:32:41 q+ 21:33:06 SimonCox: will help GA by review. After Review will be update of an operational system. 21:33:10 ACTION: Simon to collaborate with Nicholas Car from Geoscience Australia on the SOSA implementation in their operational system 21:33:10 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 ack DanhLePhuoc 21:33:53 DanhLePhuoc: will implement one NOAA dataset 21:34:11 NOAA 21:34:27 ACTION: DanhLePhuoc to coordinate one implementation evidence around SOSA/SSN in the NOAA dataset 21:34:27 Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at . 21:34:28 q? 21:34:31 q+ 21:34:37 ...20K+ weather observations 21:36:04 ahaller2: will update historical climate dataset - small subset of terms 21:36:26 ...timeline is about 6 weeks 21:36:46 ACTION: ahaller2 to implement SSN new in lab.environment.data.gov.au 21:36:47 Created ACTION-352 - Implement ssn new in lab.environment.data.gov.au [on Armin Haller - due 2017-05-09]. 21:37:16 ClausStadler: not sure if my project will be available in time 21:37:19 q+ 21:37:34 ack mlefranc 21:39:08 ack DanhLePhuoc 21:40:41 Modules to be covered once or twice: actuations / input-output / systems and subsystems / platforms and deployments / systemcapabilities, operatingranges, survivalranges 21:40:57 ACTION: DanhLePhuoc to talk to people in Siemens to have an implementation in one of their Plugfests 21:40:57 Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at . 21:41:33 ACTIOn: danh to talk to people in Siemens to have an implementation in one of their Plugfests 21:41:34 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 DanhLePhuoc: will explore possibilities in ioT plugfests 21:41:46 q? 21:42:17 q? 21:42:51 Bye! 21:43:01 bye 21:43:02 RRSAgent, draft minutes 21:43:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/02-sdwssn-minutes.html ahaller2 21:43:09 make the minutes! 21:43:13 done 21:57:24 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn