Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<kerry> scribe: SimonCox

<kerry> scribenick: SimonCox

<kerry> proposed: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-sdwssn-minutes

<kerry> +1

+1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<roba> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<kerry> approved: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-sdwssn-minutes

RESOLUTION: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-sdwssn-minutes

patent call

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Modularity: Diagram changes and email this week

ISSUE-13 and this email from Frans

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DeferredRequirements

<kerry> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DeferredRequirements

<kerry> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0112.html

<kerry> issue-13?

<trackbot> issue-13 -- SSN req. to discuss - Profiling, e.g. for checking compliance to standard model. -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/13

<roba> i'm losing sound regulary.. :-(

Proposal from kerry and frans that the requirement not be labelled 'deferred'

<roba> +1

Motion: move deferred requirement back into main section

<kerry> +1

<JoelRamsay> +1

+1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

+1

RESOLUTION:

RESOLUTION: move deferred requirement back into main document

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

roba: currently working through issues around profiling O&M for citizen science
... so, yes this is a real use case. But what is the mechanism for defining a profile within an ontology
... should not be solved by this group! much more general

kerry: we have been invited to propose mechanism/pattern

roba: if highly modular structure, then profiling is another mechanism within application domain

SimonCox: namespaces? named graphs? validation structures?

kerry: not clear yet - can't deal in this meeting

roba: test case for the modules as we proceed with that

continue to use issue-13 to track this topic

SSN Requirements from UCR

kerry: UCR is heading to final revision
... all members of ssn group should check requirements

<kerry> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#arSSN

kerry: add to agenda explicitly for next meeting

Modularity: Diagram changes and email this week

<kerry> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#Modularisation

<kerry> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0134.html

roba: diagram is high level, novel notation/idiom
... Jano's proposal makes more sense, horizontal and vertical
... the proposal here does not look very modular
... e.g. can't see sensor details, or relation with sampling feature

kerry: core has minimum needed for IoT uc
... this is Jano's proposal

roba: yes, this diagram is the vertical modularity, but not the horizontal modularity

kerry: vertical - increasing complexity as go out from core
... diagram does not show enough vertical modularization
... horizontal is the relationship between O&M and SSN facets
... core needs to be smaller?
... not yet agreed what goes in core, and what in other modules

SimonCox: how should mechanics of commenting work?

kerry: WebProtege is shared editting tool, add comments directly
... request editting permission from Armin

JoelRamsay: extra arrow from DOLCE to core. Why?
... it is already implied by SNM link

kerry: agree - probably an error

<kerry> ACTION: armin to remove arrow from dul alignment to core on diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - Remove arrow from dul alignment to core on diagram [on Armin Haller - due 2016-07-05].

DanhLePhuoc: other integrations with QB, OWL-Time?

kerry: alignment modules will be key

SimonCox: what is in alignment modules?
... subclass + subproperty axioms?

kerry: look at DOLCE alignment module to see.
... exact mechanism depends on modularity mechanism
... currently you get the alignment from the same URI

SimonCox: maybe need to use graphs?

kerry: existing DOLCE alignment is strawman

JoelRamsay: What goes in core? Is it the stuff that is always required, so must always be assumed to be present

roba: struggling with notion of a single core
... logical grouping for maximum stability

kerry: invite roba to make proposal!
... too many modules creates it own challenges. More documentation. Tradeoffs all over the place!

roba: lots of small components now common in programming. Tooling like Maven makes it manageable.
... better than monolithic

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN

roba: namespaces/mechanisms/files - need profile for e.g. water quality monitoring - that would not match any of these namespaces
... if all in one namespace, hard to know what each module is for

kerry: backward compatibility with SSN is a consideration

<kerry> simon suggests at least 3 cores

SimonCox: 3 cores - sensors, sampling, observation-events

DanhLePhuoc: need to integrate plan for best practice <--> design
... iterate between these

kerry: not the SDWWG best practice

DanhLePhuoc: need a SSN best practice

<DanhLePhuoc> ISSUE: Create corresponding Best practices to on-going design patterns

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-69 - Create corresponding best practices to on-going design patterns. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/69/edit>.

<ChrisLittle__> Bye