IRC log of sdw on 2015-07-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:51:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:51:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:52:04 [eparsons]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:52:14 [eparsons]
present+ eparsons
12:52:33 [eparsons]
regrets+ phil, kerry
12:52:55 [eparsons]
regrets+ Rachel
12:53:10 [eparsons]
regrets+ Josh, Bill, Philippe, Stefan Lemme, Bart
12:53:29 [eparsons]
Meeting: SDW WG Weekly
12:56:08 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
12:58:20 [aharth]
aharth has joined #sdw
12:59:35 [Alejandro_Llaves]
Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw
13:00:04 [Alejandro_Llaves]
present+ Alejandro_Llaves
13:00:15 [aharth]
present +aharth
13:00:17 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sdw
13:00:21 [aharth]
present+ aharth
13:00:36 [MattPerry]
present+ MattPerry
13:01:35 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdw
13:02:04 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
13:03:26 [SimonCox]
Is IRC functioning?
13:03:32 [eparsons]
13:03:51 [jtandy]
jtandy has joined #sdw
13:04:47 [SimonCox]
Its prob ably my turn
13:04:51 [Payam]
Payam has joined #sdw
13:05:10 [eparsons]
scribe: simoncox
13:05:16 [jtandy]
present+ jtandy
13:06:06 [eparsons]
Topic: Approve Minutes
13:06:14 [eparsons]
13:06:25 [Payam]
13:06:27 [jtandy]
+1 (approved)
13:06:28 [eparsons]
PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes
13:06:37 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:07:15 [eparsons]
RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
13:07:17 [ahaller2]
wasn't present
13:07:25 [eparsons]
Topic: Patent Call
13:07:31 [eparsons]
13:07:49 [SimonCox]
No objections - 2015-07-08 minutes approved
13:07:50 [ChrisLittle]
ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
13:07:58 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #sdw
13:08:05 [LarsG]
present+ LarsG
13:08:18 [ChrisLittle]
13:08:34 [eparsons]
Topic: Use Cases and Requirements: ISSUE 13
13:08:40 [eparsons]
13:08:40 [SimonCox]
eparsons: Issue013
13:09:27 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: ISSUE 13 Profiling
13:10:29 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: Profiles of SSN 1. constrained model 2. compliance - unclear which?
13:12:42 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: understands need to check data is compliant with SSN model - no clear way to do this - W3C RDF Data Shapes probably relevant but incomplete
13:12:51 [Payam]
forgot how to add myself to the qeue
13:13:01 [ChrisLittle]
13:13:04 [eparsons]
13:13:04 [Payam]
13:13:17 [ahaller2]
13:14:10 [eparsons]
13:14:36 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: e.g. geology wants to define version of SSN with specific constraints on values - probably not possible in SDW - must be delegated to application community?
13:14:41 [eparsons]
ack next
13:15:14 [SimonCox]
Payam, Chris Little, Armin on Q
13:15:25 [Payam]
13:16:15 [Payam]
ack Payam
13:16:15 [SimonCox]
Payam: validation is needed in Requirements
13:16:54 [SimonCox]
Chris is a chipmunk
13:16:55 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:17:11 [SimonCox]
Come down Chris - all forgiven
13:17:41 [SimonCox]
General hilarity
13:18:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
13:18:51 [eparsons]
13:18:54 [SimonCox]
Armin: 1. RDF Shapes not viable solution 2. different modules of SSNO makes it difficult to define generic validation service
13:18:56 [eparsons]
13:19:03 [jtandy]
13:19:52 [SimonCox]
Chris: if SSNO is complex, profiles are essential; if SSNO is simple, profiles implies SSNO is inadequate - which?
13:19:57 [eparsons]
ack next
13:20:34 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: SSNO is complex; typically necessary to add domain specific aspects in a profile
13:21:10 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:21:31 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: RDF Data Shapes is unlikely to be finished in time
13:22:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:22:29 [ChrisLittle]
+1 jeremy
13:22:48 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: Is simplifying a complex model for a domain application a 'best practice' in its own right?
13:23:15 [jtandy]
13:23:27 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: do we agree SSNO validator required?
13:23:41 [ahaller2]
+1 profile
13:23:45 [ahaller2]
-1 validator
13:23:48 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: do we need SSNO profiles?
13:23:51 [eparsons]
ack next
13:24:43 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: is the validator/profile requirement specific to SSNO? Or is this a generic requirement - to be able to profile/validate against data models?
13:25:34 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: focussing on what goes in document
13:26:22 [ahaller2]
13:26:30 [eparsons]
ack next
13:26:36 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: set 'solutions' aside at this time?
13:27:03 [SimonCox]
Armin: what does validator actually validate?
13:27:36 [Payam]
13:27:44 [eparsons]
ack next
13:28:13 [SimonCox]
Payam: validation allows combination of more than one ontology
13:28:37 [jtandy]
13:28:42 [Payam]
ack Payam
13:28:45 [eparsons]
ack next
13:28:56 [aharth]
q+ there is no validator for ontologies
13:29:02 [aharth]
13:29:18 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: 1. validation = verify that data is complete, to support application
13:29:39 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
13:29:42 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: 2. validation = verify that profile is conformant to general case
13:30:02 [eparsons]
ack next
13:30:39 [SimonCox]
Andreas: OWL models/ontologies are concerned with logical consistency, not integrity
13:31:57 [SimonCox]
ANdreas: RDF data shapes - add integrity checks; QB includes SPARQL ASK queries to check integrity
13:32:30 [SimonCox]
Ed: not convinced there is big validation requirement
13:33:30 [ahaller2]
don't care
13:33:39 [SimonCox]
Alejandro: Barcelona discussion focussed on validation; requirements on list/document appears to focus more on application-specific profiles
13:33:43 [aharth]
link to qb well-formed section:
13:33:47 [ahaller2]
it is the web, everyone can extend ontologies how they like
13:34:12 [SimonCox]
Ed: requirement does not call out validation - can we close issue?
13:34:47 [AndreaPerego]
present+ AndreaPerego
13:34:56 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: ask validation question in UCR nexct draft?
13:35:09 [Payam]
I'm sorry, I have to leave early today
13:35:23 [eparsons]
PROPOSED: Close issue - case for validation not made yet.. will revisit
13:35:23 [AndreaPerego]
13:35:38 [AndreaPerego]
13:35:39 [ChrisLittle]
+1 revisit
13:35:43 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:35:45 [Payam]
+1 revisit
13:35:47 [SimonCox]
Ed: close ISSUE 13 - no case for validation yet (can be reopened later)
13:35:50 [MattPerry]
13:36:28 [eparsons]
RESOLVED: Close issue - case for validation not made yet.. will revisit
13:36:34 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: call out 'candidate' and 'deferred' requirements - validation = candidate requirement, not addressed now
13:36:52 [jtandy]
Candidate ... Accepted ... Deferred requirements ...
13:37:07 [jtandy]
(see for example)
13:37:40 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: use precedent from CSV on web
13:37:47 [eparsons]
Topic : Best Practice Consolidation Progress
13:37:56 [SimonCox]
Ed: next - BP til now
13:38:19 [Alejandro_Llaves]
I did not
13:38:27 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:39:15 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: has membership reviewed ?
13:39:52 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: propose working through UCs to pull out common themes to use in narrative?
13:40:49 [eparsons]
13:41:01 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: focus is on Spatial Best Practices in general, Time/overages/SSN only incidentally
13:41:02 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:41:06 [LarsG]
13:41:15 [SimonCox]
13:42:06 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: publisher vs consumer view - typically publisher wears cost to make consumer's life easier.
13:43:35 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: see summary
13:45:03 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: e.g. looking for wildfires using satellite imagery - UC is mostly about classifying pixels; BP can't address details of processing algorithms, but might look at BP relating to inputs and outputs
13:45:38 [SimonCox]
Ed: yes, separate concerns
13:45:45 [AndreaPerego]
13:45:55 [eparsons]
ack next
13:46:09 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: workflows out of scope
13:46:40 [SimonCox]
Andrea: why focus on UCs rather than requirements?
13:47:06 [SimonCox]
Andrea: appears to refine UCR rather than move towards BPs
13:48:17 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: rationale = arrange BP around narrative stories, i.e. UCs
13:48:52 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: will ensure that BP does address real stories
13:49:37 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: compress 48 UCs into a small number of narrative stories
13:50:03 [Alejandro_Llaves]
sounds good to me!
13:50:22 [AndreaPerego]
+1 from em
13:50:36 [AndreaPerego]
s/from em/from me/
13:51:10 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: consolidation and mapping requirements to stories allows us to check completeness
13:52:44 [jtandy]
[4.7 Publishing geographical data](
13:52:45 [chaals]
chaals has joined #sdw
13:53:25 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: BP will not recommend encodings?
13:54:02 [SimonCox]
Ed: this would be a big gap, risks making the BP not meet expectations?
13:54:43 [SimonCox]
Ed, Jeremy: provide examples, but not exclusive list - make it clear that other techniques would be possible.
13:54:45 [ChrisLittle]
13:55:08 [eparsons]
ack next
13:55:18 [SimonCox]
Ed: BP should be as complete as possible; self-contained as far as possible
13:55:46 [SimonCox]
Chris: BP should include list of formats, with comments on pros and cons of each format
13:56:30 [SimonCox]
Ed: how long will it take to consolidate themes? How many?
13:57:08 [ChrisLittle]
suggest 6 rather than 12 narratives
13:57:17 [SimonCox]
Jeremy: no more than 12; BP document must be short-enough ... ; 1-11 took 3 hours, 12-48 to go
13:58:07 [eparsons]
Topic: ANOB
13:58:24 [SimonCox]
Ed: use discussion tab on
13:58:32 [AndreaPerego]
Around 10 would be reasonable - 6 are probably not enough to cover all the relevant use cases.
13:58:33 [SimonCox]
Book travel to Sapporo asap
13:58:52 [SimonCox]
No direct flights to Sapporo
13:59:15 [SimonCox]
Best prices are via Tokyo
13:59:25 [ChrisLittle]
13:59:30 [Alejandro_Llaves]
thanks, bye!
13:59:32 [AndreaPerego]
Thanks and bye!
13:59:38 [eparsons]
thanks simon !
13:59:39 [LarsG]
Thx, bye
13:59:39 [ChrisLittle]
bye (squeak, squeak)
13:59:40 [ahaller2]
thanks, bye
13:59:42 [MattPerry]
13:59:46 [SimonCox]
How to generate minutes?
13:59:51 [eparsons]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:59:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate eparsons
14:00:16 [ChrisLittle]
ChrisLittle has left #sdw
16:00:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sdw
16:50:32 [chaals]
chaals has joined #sdw
16:57:01 [chaals]
chaals has joined #sdw
19:04:40 [chaals]
chaals has joined #sdw