IRC log of sdwssn on 2016-07-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:58:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:58:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:58:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
20:58:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:58:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
20:58:54 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
20:58:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:58:55 [trackbot]
Date: 12 July 2016
20:58:56 [kerry]
present+ kerry
20:59:02 [kerry]
chair: kerry
20:59:27 [KJanowic]
present+ KJanowic
20:59:46 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
21:00:05 [kerry]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:00:23 [SimonCox]
present+ SimonCox
21:00:36 [roba]
roba has joined #sdwssn
21:01:00 [DanhLePhuoc]
present+ DanhLePhuoc
21:02:05 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
21:02:06 [roba]
present+ roba
21:02:14 [RaulGarciaCastro]
present+ RaulGarciaCastro
21:03:04 [kerry]
present+ scottsimmons
21:03:58 [KJanowic]
I can scribe
21:04:17 [KJanowic]
21:04:23 [kerry]
scribe: KJanowic
21:04:37 [kerry]
scribenick: KJanowic
21:04:59 [kerry]
topic: patent call
21:06:20 [KJanowic]
kerry: Discussion of how much change we can/should do compared to OWL:Time
21:06:42 [ahaller2]
21:06:58 [KJanowic]
kerry: Dont delete but deprecate
21:07:13 [KJanowic]
Simon: we are fine as long as we use a new namespace
21:07:37 [KJanowic]
kerry: Agreed, but this is also about respecting the current user base
21:07:41 [ahaller2]
21:08:20 [SimonCox]
21:08:33 [KJanowic]
Try to avoid removing parts of the ontology (axioms)
21:08:35 [KJanowic]
21:08:40 [kerry]
21:08:44 [kerry]
ack ahaller2
21:09:16 [SimonCox]
21:09:28 [kerry]
ack ahaller
21:09:32 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: we use a new namespace so we should be fine. The core will be significantly different but one of the other layers would be very similar to the existing SSN.
21:10:03 [SimonCox]
21:10:12 [KJanowic]
Kerry: fair enough. We have more flexibility than OWL:Time
21:10:47 [kerry]
21:10:53 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:11:03 [SimonCox]
21:11:28 [ahaller2]
+1 for not adding deprecated classes in the core
21:11:40 [KJanowic]
21:11:51 [KJanowic]
Sure, I know this
21:12:25 [SimonCox]
21:12:30 [kerry]
21:12:51 [KJanowic]
kerry: Agreed but we need to take it back to the group and be respectful of existing users
21:12:56 [kerry]
21:13:05 [kerry]
ack SimonCox
21:13:35 [KJanowic]
Simon: I am pretty sure that this only applies for a previously published namespace.
21:14:13 [KJanowic]
Simon: protecting users is done via not making changes to the existing namespace.
21:14:46 [kerry]
21:14:46 [KJanowic]
kerry: lets wait for Phil and move on in the agenda
21:15:02 [kerry]
21:15:08 [kerry]
topic: SSN Requirements from UCR
21:15:39 [KJanowic]
kerry: This is purely a reminder to have a look at UCR and that we are all happy with the current content.
21:15:57 [kerry]
topic: ISSUE-20 Reference external vocabularies
21:16:14 [kerry]
21:16:14 [trackbot]
issue-20 -- Reference external vocabularies -- open
21:16:14 [trackbot]
21:16:53 [kerry]
21:16:54 [KJanowic]
21:16:55 [kerry]
21:17:03 [roba]
21:17:06 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:17:49 [KJanowic]
kjanowic: isn't this about nomenclature? If so, we should deal with it
21:18:45 [kerry]
21:19:01 [kerry]
ack roba
21:19:16 [KJanowic]
KJanowic: so this is also about typecasting between class and entity based classifications, right?
21:19:35 [KJanowic]
Rob: We also need to look into units of measure
21:20:03 [KJanowic]
[My daughter just woke up, can somebody please scribe for 2min?]
21:20:31 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:20:47 [kerry]
21:21:30 [kerry]
roba: no the issue does not need to stay as it will be picked up by broader best practice environment although it is relevant
21:21:46 [kerry]
....whther uom should be part of ssn for example?
21:21:55 [kerry]
21:22:22 [roba]
i'll scribe
21:22:24 [kerry]
21:22:53 [kerry]
action: frans to close issue-20 please
21:22:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-184 - Close issue-20 please [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-07-19].
21:23:05 [roba]
...pointed out that its a general BP - but a Use Case and consideration of UoM as a challenge is SSN space
21:23:09 [kerry]
topic: ISSUE-24 clarification of lightweight APIs requirement
21:23:20 [ahaller2]
21:23:23 [roba]
...kerry - consensus is then the close issue
21:23:26 [kerry]
21:23:26 [trackbot]
issue-24 -- clarification of lightweight APIs requirement -- open
21:23:26 [trackbot]
21:23:51 [ahaller2]
21:23:59 [kerry]
ack raul
21:24:16 [kerry]
ack ahaller2
21:24:25 [roba]
raul - infrastructure requirement not onotology req.
21:24:46 [kerry]
21:24:51 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:25:01 [roba]
armin - agree its infrastructure but points out that lightweight core will support lightweigt APIs
21:25:10 [kerry]
21:25:23 [roba]
kerry - UCR closing - need concrete proposal
21:25:23 [KJanowic]
[I am back, sorry]
21:25:26 [kerry]
ack ahaller2
21:25:35 [ahaller2]
21:25:42 [kerry]
ack ahaller
21:25:48 [ahaller2]
ack ahaller
21:26:04 [kerry]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:26:24 [roba]
Danh - more general problem?
21:26:27 [kerry]
21:26:34 [roba]
Kerry - change to an example
21:27:14 [kerry]
21:27:28 [roba]
21:27:44 [kerry]
ack roba
21:28:02 [kerry]
21:28:35 [kerry]
21:28:42 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:28:53 [kerry]
ack DanhLePhuoc
21:29:35 [KJanowic]
Danh: Rephrase this requirement to the lightweight profile of the ontology wrt IoT.
21:29:47 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:30:01 [roba]
roba: req reads like it is intended to ensure SSN is relevant to the IoT space - but we would need the IoT req stated
21:30:02 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:30:39 [roba]
21:30:42 [ahaller2]
21:30:43 [kerry]
21:30:54 [KJanowic]
Proposal: Ask Franz to rephrase
21:30:55 [KJanowic]
21:32:23 [kerry]
action: frans to rephrase issue-24 requirement to something like "develop lightweight profile of the ontology for IoT"
21:32:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-185 - Rephrase issue-24 requirement to something like "develop lightweight profile of the ontology for iot" [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-07-19].
21:32:36 [KJanowic]
Sounds good to me
21:32:46 [kerry]
21:32:59 [kerry]
ack roba
21:33:00 [KJanowic]
whether this is about profiles or not is another story that we can discuss at a later time
21:33:38 [KJanowic]
Simom: Develop an example how the ontology can be used. The SOSA Core is not a profile.
21:34:06 [KJanowic]
Kerry: Show how the ontology can be used for lightweight IOT needs.
21:34:07 [ahaller2]
maybe "require a lightweight way to exchange data according to the SSN ontology"
21:34:13 [KJanowic]
see above
21:34:33 [ahaller2]
"in the IoT context"
21:34:46 [kerry]
21:35:10 [KJanowic]
final version: Show how the SSN ontology can be applied in the context of lightweight IoT needs
21:35:11 [KJanowic]
21:35:16 [KJanowic]
21:35:24 [kerry]
21:35:25 [ahaller2]
APIs are always about exchange
21:35:37 [ahaller2]
21:35:39 [roba]
21:35:40 [DanhLePhuoc]
21:35:42 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:36:27 [kerry]
action: frans to fix issue-24 by replacing requirment to "Show how the SSN ontology can be applied in the context of lightweight IoT needs"
21:36:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-186 - Fix issue-24 by replacing requirment to "show how the ssn ontology can be applied in the context of lightweight iot needs" [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-07-19].
21:36:35 [kerry]
21:37:03 [kerry]
21:37:10 [ahaller2]
21:37:47 [kerry]
topic: Suggested changes to ontology editing process/tooling
21:38:03 [kerry]
ack ahaller
21:38:16 [KJanowic]
Ahaller2: We moved the ontology away from Webprotege for may reasons, one of them being issues with the namespace. This makes it pretty unusable for our work. Proposal was to use github.
21:38:28 [kerry]
21:39:28 [KJanowic]
Ahaller2: Most people will edit the file directly.
21:39:38 [KJanowic]
21:39:43 [kerry]
21:40:06 [KJanowic]
21:40:10 [kerry]
21:40:33 [KJanowic]
We can usue whatever we want as long as we are carful with our github pull requests and the way we handle the raw file
21:40:46 [kerry]
topic: SOSA/SANDA?
21:40:50 [SimonCox]
I find TopBraid generates a very consistent serialization. It just isn't the same as Protege ...
21:41:01 [KJanowic]
21:41:12 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:42:10 [KJanowic]
21:42:17 [ahaller2]
21:42:19 [roba]
KJanowic: - didnt get that sorry..
21:42:25 [kerry]
ack ahaller2
21:42:27 [roba]
Kerry: asks for summary
21:42:37 [kerry]
ack ahaller
21:43:21 [KJanowic]
Ahaller2: What we did was taking kjanowic work, add the actuator class and then change the name and so forth.
21:43:42 [KJanowic]
21:44:36 [KJanowic]
ahaller starting the discussion on process and procedure
21:44:42 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:44:54 [SimonCox]
Armin + Simon worked on SANDA -
21:45:11 [SimonCox]
Simon and Jano worked on
21:46:43 [SimonCox]
Re Procedure - shoudl be " ... responsible for generating an observation result or another change in the world"
21:46:54 [ahaller2]
+1 on distinguishing the instruments and the procedure. This was definitely my intention in the first proposal of the core
21:46:57 [SimonCox]
21:47:01 [roba]
21:47:02 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:47:20 [ahaller2]
21:47:31 [kerry]
21:47:35 [kerry]
ack SimonCox
21:48:02 [KJanowic]
ahaller2, great. But if you look at samplingprocedure and procedure now, only sampling procedure is about a procedure.
21:48:17 [KJanowic]
simon: agreed, there is some confusion that we need to clean up
21:48:35 [ahaller2]
KJanowic: That was a problem of wrong documentation of the class.
21:48:36 [KJanowic]
21:48:46 [ahaller2]
KJanowic: Webprotege was playing up with us
21:49:11 [ahaller2]
KJanowic: reintroducing rdf:coments for whatever reason
21:49:13 [KJanowic]
aheller2: Sure, I just wanted to point this out
21:49:20 [ahaller2]
21:49:36 [KJanowic]
same for Results being only created by Sensors (I already changed this)
21:50:03 [KJanowic]
21:50:18 [kerry]
ack roba
21:51:17 [KJanowic]
Very important issue
21:51:31 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:53:00 [kerry]
21:53:08 [ahaller2]
+1 to KJanowic, the procedure is measuring the temperature of soil or air, depending on how you use the SensingDevice
21:53:26 [roba]
+1 to KJanowic
21:53:42 [RaulGarciaCastro]
21:53:47 [SimonCox]
ObservingProcedure is subclass of Procedure and superclass of Sensor?
21:54:26 [ahaller2]
SimonCox: we called it Sensing, didn't we
21:54:26 [SimonCox]
Procedure is also superclass of ActuatingProcedure and SamplingProcedure
21:54:28 [SimonCox]
21:54:59 [KJanowic]
Simon: IMHO, the procedure is like to cookbook recipe. It is not a superclass of sensor.
21:54:59 [SimonCox]
Yes - Sensing/Actuating/Sampling better names
21:55:18 [ahaller2]
Then yes
21:55:27 [SimonCox]
Agree - is recipe, not device
21:55:31 [SimonCox]
Uses a device
21:55:38 [KJanowic]
It is a bridge to workflows
21:55:51 [SimonCox]
21:56:24 [KJanowic]
Kerry: sorry, yes I will
21:56:53 [KJanowic]
yes, so if the procedure is a sequence of actions (like in a receipt) and not a device, than we should change the description
21:57:06 [KJanowic]
Rob: There needs to be a method to identify a procedure as well as to describe it
21:57:31 [KJanowic]
21:57:32 [ahaller2]
+1 to change the description. I think we all are on the same page
21:57:45 [KJanowic]
21:58:00 [KJanowic]
We are also talking about the subtle differences between sensing and a procedure
21:58:30 [KJanowic]
Rob: Just needs to be clear to the usage
21:58:46 [KJanowic]
21:59:03 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
21:59:20 [kerry]
krz: there are instruments, that might be a specific sensor that
21:59:32 [kerry]
...carries an observation, a sensing is always tking place..
21:59:52 [kerry]
...but an observation procedure is more of a'to take a measurement do these steps"
22:00:03 [kerry]
...this is a procedure that makes sure [missed]
22:00:17 [kerry]
...want to be as inclusive as we can e,g instruments and human sensors
22:00:18 [ahaller2]
SensingDevice is an Instrument
22:00:37 [ahaller2]
We need to be careful with the Sensor class, this is why we renamed it to Sensing, because Sensor sounds like a device
22:00:44 [kerry]
.... want to distinguish describing a procedure from [missed]
22:00:47 [roba]
works for me - needs to be front anb centre of description
22:00:52 [kerry]
22:00:58 [KJanowic]
If this is okay with everybody, I can do the change in SOSA (this is all just about the comment, there is no axiom anyway :-))
22:01:25 [kerry]
armin: need to be careful with sensor class which sounds like an instrument
22:01:27 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: lets be careful with sensor class as it sounds like an instrument. sensing is the super class
22:01:29 [DanhLePhuoc]
22:01:31 [KJanowic]
22:01:41 [KJanowic]
ahaller2: we should use sensing
22:01:50 [kerry]
... but sensing is a superclass..., sensor could be confused with sensing device
22:01:53 [kerry]
22:02:25 [KJanowic]
Danh: Completely different question: What about the way we are coding, i.e., RDF versus OWL.
22:02:39 [KJanowic]
22:02:40 [kerry]
ack KJanowic
22:02:55 [kerry]
ack DanhLePhuoc
22:03:14 [ahaller2]
Sensing would not be the Instrument
22:03:20 [roba]
22:03:27 [kerry]
krz: sensing implies an action, we need to discuss how to call this on the email list -- the procedure and the thing that executes it is doffernt
22:03:32 [ahaller2]
SensingDevice is the Instrument
22:03:39 [ahaller2]
Human could be the Instrument
22:03:51 [KJanowic]
In short: there is the procedure and the XYZ that carries out this procedure to generate a valid observation
22:04:04 [ahaller2]
22:04:04 [kerry]
rrsagent, draft miutes
22:04:04 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft miutes', kerry. Try /msg RRSAgent help
22:04:12 [KJanowic]
The question is how we call XYZ so that it includes sensors, simulations, humans,...
22:04:24 [KJanowic]
kerry closing the meeting
22:04:27 [ahaller2]
XYZ could be Sensor, but not sure about the name
22:04:39 [SimonCox]
22:04:46 [SimonCox]
22:04:47 [kerry]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:04:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kerry
22:04:58 [ahaller2]
bye, let's continue on the list
22:05:01 [KJanowic]
bye bye
22:05:40 [KJanowic]
KJanowic has left #sdwssn
22:10:49 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:11:06 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn