<scribe> ScribeNick: Holger

Amendment to last meeting - apologies

Simon, Victor, Krzysztof, Luis, Jesus, Fernando, Kevin

Apologies (today)

Simon, Francisco, Laurent, Amit Sheth

---Meeting today dedicated to discussion of existing Ontologies---

<jgraybea> Hello Holger

Hi John

<jgraybea> So we will use IRC, but not for the technical notes?

Yes, Michael will take the notes his way and put the PDF on the wiki

<jgraybea> I would like to capture as much of the content as possible on http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Ontologies_Attributes

<jgraybea> I will take those notes -- will that be OK with you and Holger? Or too redundant?

Notes can be too redundant ;-)

Notes CAN'T be too redundant ;-)

can't

<jgraybea> just to finish that thread for the log herre, we will defer updating the SSN Ontologies Attributes page to after the meeting

<Victor> hello!

Hi Victor

<Arthur> +??P6 is me

CSIRO / SSN Ontology

<jgraybea> @holger

<jgraybea> I think the background noise came on with Danh

<krp> Perhaps anyone who's not speaking could mute themselves, either on their handset or through zakim? (please!)

OntoSensor

<michael> I can load onto sensor in Protege3.3.1, but the sumo import doesn't work.

<ocorcho> I think that the problem is that it is using old OWL syntax

<ocorcho> the one that was candidate recommendation in 2003

<ocorcho> at least I see rdfs:subClassOf descriptions in the text file

SWAMO

MCRLab SUMO

<ocorcho> rgarcia is working with me at UPM

MMI Device Ontology

SensorML Processes

<ocorcho> I think that on this specific type of model we could also take a look at things like SUMO. Probably they many of these things defined. Just a thought

CESN\

<ocorcho> is it true that a sensor can only measure one property? Isn't that a very restricted view?

<jgraybea> it is typically in the vocabulary of the definer (some think of sensor at transducer level)

<ocorcho> ok

OOSTethys

WISNO

A3ME ontology

Stimuli-centered ontology

General discussion

<krzysztof_j> +q

<kerry> +q

<ocorcho> I am trying to access the conference call again and the system tells me that it is restricted

<ocorcho> is that for everybody?

<kerry> could mean we already have 15 people

the hour has passed...

<krp> +q

<kerry> i am listening, but maybe cant be heard

<krzysztof_j> -q

<ocorcho> ok. I will be looking for minutes.. Sorry that I am missing this part where I wanted to contribute

<ocorcho> as well

<Luis> +q

<kerry> i have reviewd liu 2005 before

<jgraybea> Krzysztof suggests that we consider what we want to do before identifying preferred starting point

<michael> Oscar - write an email to the list and we'll make sure the input is included

<jgraybea> 775.aaaa is graybeal

<kerry> no..

<kerry> not working for me today

<michael> +q

<kerry> i have reviewd liu 2005 before

<kerry> can provideshort summary

<kerry> q

<kerry> -q

<krp> -q

<jgraybea> it appears property adoption would be straightforward in many cases, but more fundamental structural issues may be harder to address

<Arthur> +q

<krp> +q

<jgraybea> structural issues could include composition, observations, real time information, sensors as stimulus

<krzysztof_j> ack

<jgraybea> suggestion of core specification widely usable, and expanded version with more extensive characteristics

<michael> +q

<jgraybea> krp: make sure we can ensure positioning of data from the sensors, and so forth

<jgraybea> michael: in some sense data/observations and sensors should be equally first class

<krzysztof_j> we do

<cory> +q

<cory> we do too

<Danh_DERI> we do too

<Luis> +q

<Danh_DERI> +q

<krzysztof_j> ack

<jgraybea> observations are of critical interest but (as noted above) many ontologies of them exist (SONET has list)

<jgraybea> SWE trying to abstract common observation model

<kerry> +1

<krzysztof_j> we can start working on the ensor ontology but should keep the observation part in mind

<jgraybea> the question is whether we could start with CSIRO and build on to that with other content

<michael> I think that sounds sensible.

+1

<krzysztof_j> and connect/align the ontologies later

<krp> Yes, sounds sensible.

<scribe> ACTION: all_presenters to edit http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Ontologies_Attributes for their presented ontology(ies) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-ssn-minutes.html#action01]

<jgraybea> yes, I suggest we start with that but treat any 'conflicts' with the other ontologies as possible structure issues (add them to the issues list)

<Danh_DERI> sorry, I was kicked out

<scribe> ACTION: Michael and John to put detailed minutes on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-ssn-minutes.html#action02]

<kerry> bye, I have to go now. Neither the phone nor the IRC worked properly for me today...good content if only i had heard it. thanks

<krzysztof_j> bye

<Luis> bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: Holger
Inferring Scribes: Holger
Default Present: Holger, +1.831.775.aaaa, +1.585.919.aabb, krp, michael, Victor, cory, krzysztof_j, Rodrigo, Arthur, rgarcia, ocorcho, kerry
Present: Holger +1.831.775.aaaa +1.585.919.aabb krp michael Victor cory krzysztof_j Rodrigo Arthur rgarcia ocorcho kerry
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Jul 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-ssn-minutes.html
People with action items: all_presenters john michael

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.