Spatial Data on the Web WG SSN Sub Group Teleconference

03 May 2016

See also: IRC log


Kerry, KJanowicz, Payam, JRamsay, ClausStadler, SefkiKolozali_UniS, ahaller2, DanhLePhuoc, phila, SimonCox, joshlieberman, RaulGarciaCastro


<SefkiKolozali_UniS> +present

<RaulGarciaCastro> +present RaulGarciaCastro

<KJanowicz> sure

<Kerry> scribe: claus

<Kerry> scribenick: claus

<Kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20160503

<Kerry> proposed: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/04/19-sdwssn-minutes

<KJanowicz> +

<KJanowicz> 1+

<Payam> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<JRamsay> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

<KJanowicz> sorry

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<SefkiKolozali_UniS> +1

<phila> 0 wasn't there

RESOLUTION: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/04/19-sdwssn-minutes

<SimonCox> +present SimonCox

<joshlieberman> Webex having a spat with Safari. On finally.

<Kerry_> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

<SimonCox> Can't get onto webex :(

"Sensor" related to DUL: followup

<ClausStadler> Follow up from last SSN meeting's discussion to move sensor from PhysicalObject to Object

<joshlieberman> Webber <xxx> Safari. Try Chrome?

<Kerry_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks

<Payam> +q

<KJanowicz> +q

<SimonCox> Can a sensor be a person?

<KJanowicz> IMHO, yes (and it should)

<joshlieberman> I should hope so.

<SimonCox> Perhaps sensing is a role, not an essence?

<joshlieberman> Or is a person a platform for multiple sensors?

<KJanowicz> everyting that takes measures and produces and outcome should be allowed to be a sensor

<SimonCox> @josh depends on how much you want to decompose it

<KJanowicz> btw, this also means that there has to be a stimulus

<ClausStadler> payam: pratically people won't look into these kind of terminological details - they have a device that can measure things and want to model their setting - so suggestion to focus on more into practical issues

<joshlieberman> I might challenge a visual observation by a blind person, but that's just me.

<SimonCox> +1 to @KJanowicz

<KJanowicz> +q

<SimonCox> THe other problem with DUL alignment is Observation =/= Event

<ClausStadler> KJanowicz: as SSN-DUL alignment won't be part in the FPWD and people are unlikely to query for "give me all objects" its not a major issue

<SimonCox> We can defer this discussion until we have revisited the rest of the ontology

<ClausStadler> Kerry_: There will be a note published which intends to show how to use SSN with DUL, so the alignment is an issue, although not a major one

<SimonCox> ... and maybe also look at alignment with other upper ontologies (e.g. BFO) at the same time as DUL

<DanhLePhuoc> +q

<ClausStadler> KJanowicz: We should focus on the core observation and sensor model which should become as useful as schema.org and only once that has been established see how DUL alignment can be performed

<KJanowicz> IMHO, we need a core part of SSN,e.g., a pattern that is as trivial as schema.org and then add more complex modules on top of it for more complicated applications

<KJanowicz> +q

<KJanowicz> http://semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj1237.pdf

<ClausStadler> DanhLePhuoc: Agrees with KJanowicz - the first class citizens are observation, measurement and some metadata and they should be worked out first

<ClausStadler> KJanowicz: If there was small robust model published it will likely have millions of users right away. From there the model(s) can be extended.

<KJanowicz> ahaller2: yes but lets not forget that SSN-XG was the result of an incubator group that was tasked to test out the waters. we should be allowed to include lessons learned

<SimonCox> Process issue: yes, it is good to resolve things, and to clearly record the resolution. But that does not mean things can't be re-opened if the group agrees.

<Kerry_> proposed: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant

<KJanowicz> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<ClausStadler> ahaller2: Agrees that devising a simple set of core modules with light weight semantics (RDFS) is a good idea. Also, we should start from what is already on the web protege and remove items rather than starting over from scratch.

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<KJanowicz> using foundational ontologies is really not cathcing up on the SW. Most people moved on to patterns and other approaches and this is for good reasons

<KJanowicz> I reason is that it is not maintained any longer

<joshlieberman> 1oT actually needs a strong device model to deal with bewildering variety of sensors and platforms.

<Payam> +q

<Payam> I don't think we need a redesign

<Payam> what we need it to make SSN more lightweight, more modular and add O&M

<ClausStadler> SefkiKolozali_UniS: As ontology engineers, in our work, we have to comply to certain criseria when publishing datasets, such as include links to certain foundation ontologies. Therefore, changing alignments requires update of established processes in the publishing workflows. Hence, there need to be strong arguments to remove ontologies and potential replacements need to be clarified.

<KJanowicz> +1

<KJanowicz> Agree with Payam

<Payam> Kerry_ can you repeat your porposal

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<Kerry_> proposed: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant

<Payam> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<ahaller2> agree with Payam, I think we all agree on what to do, it is more a question around process

<ClausStadler> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<Kerry_> +1

<KJanowicz> I would like to speak on that

<SimonCox> +1

RESOLUTION: sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant

<joshlieberman> +1

<KJanowicz> the reference to DUL at http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DUL.owl does not exist anymore.

<Payam> agree with your plan Kerry_

<KJanowicz> This one still works: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl

<Payam> +q

<DanhLePhuoc> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

<SimonCox> @KJanowicz disconnect between ontologies and linked data ;-)

<ClausStadler> kerry The work on FPWD should stay close to what it is now

<ClausStadler> DanhLePhuoc and Kerry: Proposal for modularization already exists, we should not start over from scratch

<KJanowicz> I am afraid that if we only do minimal changes for now with the hope to change them leater, we will not change them at all

<KJanowicz> sorry :-)

<ClausStadler> Payam: The meeting is run too democratically: Issues should be more prioritized such that important things get tackled before having to wrap up everything in the last two weeks :)

<KJanowicz> +q

<Payam> kerry when do you plan to publish it?

<SimonCox> When it is in a condition which shows a coherent picture of what we expect to see going forward.

<phila> FPWD?

<ClausStadler> KJanowicz: We are trying to standardize something for the next 10 years to come. Therefore we should be allowed to perform major changes and it should take the time needed, such as 2 months. (I hope I got that right)

<Payam_> +q

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

<SimonCox> There is another proposal on the table, mentioned by @KJanowicz above

<KJanowicz> +q

<ClausStadler> payam: What are the priorities for getting FPWD done?

<KJanowicz> +q

<ClausStadler> kerry: It has been discussed over - 1. dul alignment 2. modularization 3. get open issues and documentation + introduction into the draft

<ClausStadler> KJanowicz: Emphasizes that payam's comments on slow progress due to too much talking are a bit harsh

<SimonCox> It is incorrect to suggest there are no other things on the table.

<KJanowicz> I understand your point kerry and I fully appreciate your work on pushing us towards a first draft.

<ClausStadler> kerry: The document suggests how modularization gets implemented - its in the proposal already. What goes into SSN and what not will not be resolved within the next two months, therefore the issues need to be documented - in a nutshell, we can have mechanisms for modularizationsbut not content.

<ClausStadler> DanhLePhuoc: What's the ETA on the FPWD?

<phila> (awkward process thing - publications need to be agreed by whole WG, not just sub group).

<ClausStadler> kerry: plans were: 3 month ago it was end of april, but now estimate not clear yet - proposals?

<ClausStadler> kerry: within a month it could be feasible, unresolved proposals could go into the document as questions

<SimonCox> Agree that there is no consensus on alternative proposals, but some *are* fully worked out.

<SimonCox> [Time draft is incomplete, but can be viewed here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ ]

<ClausStadler> phila: in order to get extension approved by W3C for dec 2016, formal ground work needs to be done by june

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about time lines

<SimonCox> Alternatives to be considered: http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/sam-lite

<Payam> +q

<ahaller2> +1 to publish first draft with ontology documented as now and then work on agreement on further modules

<ClausStadler> DanhLePhuoc: will it be feasible to add measurement and observation to the FPWD?

<ClausStadler> kerry: I first need to understand the proposal better - please elaborate

<KJanowicz> SimonCox: This is what I tried to push; see above.

<Payam> SimonCox , I think this can be a good starting point

<SefkiKolozali_UniS> +q

<KJanowicz> +q

<kerry> ++++1

<ClausStadler> DanhLePhuoc: Explained current work on alignment of observations and measurements

<SimonCox> Note that om-lite does *not* provide a model for sensors - just a stub class. This where the SSO pattern could be introduced?

<KJanowicz> My proposal was to have a common core module for observations and sensors in a schema.org style and then add more complex modules for other parts and for more involved axioms on top of it. I also proposed to use om-lite for the observation part (it does not speak about sensors).

<KJanowicz> I understand if this is not feasible and do not want to add to the pain.

<KJanowicz> q

<ClausStadler> SefkiKolozali_UniS: Also has input on the observation and measurement topic and offers to contribute

<SimonCox> This also of interest: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089606

<joshlieberman> bye

<KJanowicz> Thanks, bye bye

<Payam> thanks, bye

<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/04/19-sdwssn-minutes
  2. sensor is an dul:object issue delayed until we reconsider core ssn first and it may become irrelevant
[End of minutes]