00:07:26 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
01:01:00 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
02:02:14 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
03:42:24 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
04:15:12 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #sdw
05:06:44 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
05:21:16 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
06:28:12 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
07:11:15 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
07:13:39 <billrobe_> billrobe_ has joined #sdw
07:21:55 <sam> sam has joined #sdw
07:23:45 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
07:25:28 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
07:26:44 <dmitrybrizhinev> dmitrybrizhinev has joined #sdw
07:26:50 <raphael> raphael has joined #sdw
07:27:22 <roba> roba has joined #sdw
07:27:27 <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting
07:27:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
07:27:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
07:27:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
07:27:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
07:27:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
07:27:33 <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2016
07:28:12 <eparsons> Present+ eparsons
07:28:13 <billrobe_> billrobe_ has joined #sdw
07:28:39 <billrobe_> billrobe_ has joined #sdw
07:28:41 <phila> phila has joined #sdw
07:28:43 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
07:28:54 <eparsons> Chair: eparsons
07:29:24 <eparsons> Still waiting for people to arrive - may start in about 10 mins est. Time for a coffee ?
07:29:40 <phila> trackbot start meeting
07:29:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
07:29:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
07:29:44 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
07:29:45 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
07:29:45 <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2016
07:29:54 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
07:30:04 <phila> s/Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference/Spatial Data on the Web WG F2F, TPAC 2016 Day 2/
07:32:28 <AZ> AZ has joined #sdw
07:32:40 <AZ> present+ AZ
07:33:09 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
07:36:48 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
07:36:57 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
07:36:57 <RaulGarciaCastro> present+ RaulGarciaCastro
07:37:04 <frans> frans has joined #sdw
07:37:08 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdw
07:37:10 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
07:37:15 <kerry> present+ kerry
07:37:47 <raphael> present+ raphael
07:37:53 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
07:38:04 <Linda> present+ Linda
07:38:08 <billrobe_> Documents we'll be discussing in the first session:
07:38:09 <Linda> scribe: Linda
07:38:12 <billrobe_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/
07:38:17 <billrobe_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/RDF_Datacube_for_Coverages
07:38:22 <billrobe_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/
07:38:40 <frans> present+ frans
07:38:53 <billrobe_> present+ billrobe_
07:39:02 <billrobe_> (sorry my irc client has mangled my username)
07:39:28 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
07:40:04 <eparsons> Topic : Approve yeterdays minutes
07:40:25 <eparsons> PROPOSED : Approve yesterdays  minutes
07:40:31 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html
07:40:40 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
07:40:46 <jtandy> +1
07:40:53 <eparsons> +1
07:40:58 <dmitrybrizhinev> present+ dmitrybrizhinev
07:41:01 <Linda> +1
07:41:02 <billrobe_> +1
07:41:06 <kerry> +1
07:41:11 <sam> sam has joined #sdw
07:41:14 <AndreaPerego> +1
07:41:16 <eparsons> RESOLUTION : Approve yesterdays minutes
07:41:23 <raphael> +1
07:41:30 <ahaller2> +1
07:43:30 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
07:43:36 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
07:43:54 <frans> +1
07:45:06 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
07:45:22 <eparsons> Topic : Coverage (demos and review of ed drafts)
07:45:52 <Linda> Bill: will bring everyone up to date of the last few months' work
07:46:19 <Linda> ... around using datacube for coverage data
07:46:34 <Linda> ... an australian team is working on that, Sam will talk about it
07:46:48 <Linda> ... and in a different strand roba is working on it
07:46:50 <billrobe_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/
07:47:11 <Linda> ... the doc at this link will become a w3c note
07:47:12 <billrobe_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/RDF_Datacube_for_Coverages
07:47:24 <Linda> ... roba's work is in this wiki page, could become part of the first doc
07:47:52 <Linda> .. also Jon Blower will join and tell us about CoverageJSON
07:47:56 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
07:48:07 <billrobe_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/
07:48:20 <Linda> ... this will also be a W3C note and OGC discussion paper
07:48:21 <billrobe_> https://covjson.org/
07:49:10 <Linda> ... we're not trying to replace existing cov standards but targetting new users
07:50:16 <eparsons> q?
07:50:53 <Linda> sam: using rdf datacube for coverages
07:51:23 <Linda> ... rdf + triple store doesn't work for large coverages
07:52:36 <Linda> ... 3 ways of doing this with rdf
07:53:21 <Linda> dmitrybrizhinev: been working on an example which is in the draft note
07:53:25 <chunming> chunming has joined #sdw
07:53:35 <billrobe_> https://github.com/ANU-Linked-Earth-Data/ontology/blob/master/ANU-LED.owl
07:53:39 <Linda> ... using rdf to say things about your data
07:53:40 <billrobe_> https://github.com/ANU-Linked-Earth-Data/ontology/blob/master/ANU-LED-example.owl
07:53:58 <Linda> ... the example helps you understand how to do it
07:54:55 <RaulGarciaCastro> The second file should be a .ttl file, shouldn’t it?
07:55:12 <dmitrybrizhinev> yes, they both probably should be
07:55:37 <Linda> kerry: suggests a demo showing the work, people here haven't seen it
07:56:00 <sam> https://anu-linked-earth-data.github.io/#/
07:56:22 <jonblower> jonblower has joined #sdw
07:56:28 <jonblower> present+ jonblower
07:56:46 <Linda> (just a moment while we get the beamer working)
07:59:36 <Linda> billrobe_: we got the demo on screen now
08:00:18 <Linda> sam:its a javascript application
08:00:37 <Linda> ... data stored on the server in rdf
08:00:57 <Linda> ...you can move through time
08:01:31 <Linda> ... backend supports directly querying the rdf
08:02:25 <jonblower> I don't suppose the screen can be shared through Webex? Demo link works but might be easier to follow if we could see what Sam's doing
08:02:27 <Linda> kerry: it was difficult to understand you so I will rephrase
08:02:55 <maik> maik has joined #sdw
08:03:30 <sam> I can try poking around in WebEx to see whether screen sharing works.
08:03:47 <jonblower> Thanks Sam. Actually I could hear you better than I can hear Kerry now!
08:04:07 <Linda> ... data is stored as binary pixels and every tile has an url where you can get image details
08:04:32 <billrobe_> https://github.com/ANU-Linked-Earth-Data/ontology/blob/master/ANU-LED-example.owl
08:04:41 <sam> Yes, that's the one. Thanks.
08:04:52 <Linda> sam: the example makes it clear.
08:05:11 <Linda> kerry: the ontology here is describing this dataset
08:05:26 <Linda> ... roba is more looking at standardizing the dimensions
08:05:40 <AndreaPerego> Turtle output from one of the queries: https://anulinkedearth.org/landsat/query?query=PREFIX+xsd:+%3Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2FXMLSchema%23%3E%0APREFIX+led:+%3Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.example.org%2FANU-LED%23%3E%0APREFIX+geo:+%3Chttp:%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2003%2F01%2Fgeo%2Fwgs84_pos%23%3E%0APREFIX+qb:++%3Chttp:%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flinked-data%2Fcube%23%3ESELECT+%3Fsubject+%3FgeoSparql+%3FtimePeriod+%3Fband+%3Fvalue+%3Fresolution+%3Flon+%3Flat+%3FdggsLevelSqua[CUT]
08:05:49 <ericP> ericP has left #sdw
08:06:37 <Linda> kerry: the work also has a prov alignment and some ssn
08:06:44 <Linda> ... and a bit of owl time
08:07:07 <Linda> billrobe_: rob please give us an overview of your work
08:07:12 <billrobe_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/RDF_Datacube_for_Coverages
08:07:42 <AndreaPerego> s/Turtle/JSON/
08:07:54 <Linda> roba: looked at rdf datacube and how to add in dimensions via an extension
08:08:08 <eparsons> q?
08:08:43 <Linda> ... the work is still in strawman stage
08:10:24 <Linda> (showing roba's screen)
08:11:45 <Linda> ... flattened out dimension hierarchy to make it simpler to use
08:11:50 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
08:12:30 <Linda> ... as a single file
08:12:53 <Linda> ... communities can define their own dimensions
08:13:08 <Linda> ... and register them
08:13:28 <phila> q+ to ask about validation
08:15:21 <eparsons> ack next
08:15:22 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about validation
08:15:40 <sam> (some example Turtle from demo before: http://pastebin.com/DUrGGiNj)
08:15:56 <Linda> phila: you have some spin in there to validatie
08:16:05 <Linda> ... can I check that my data is valid to your templates?
08:16:20 <billrobe_> (thanks sam for the example data)
08:16:24 <Linda> roba: would be possible to make a validation spin, this is an entailment spin
08:17:24 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #sdw
08:17:33 <AndreaPerego_> present+ AndreaPerego
08:18:20 <Linda> (shows the UI letting you add a coordinate dimension binding using a form)
08:19:24 <Linda> phila: are you depending on spin for this to work?
08:19:32 <Linda> roba: not particularly, backend could use anything
08:20:19 <AndreaPerego_> zakim, AndreaPerego_ is AndreaPerego
08:20:19 <Zakim> sorry, AndreaPerego_, I do not recognize a party named 'AndreaPerego_'
08:20:54 <Linda> billrobe_: Rob is explicitly asking for feedback on this
08:21:21 <Linda> ... Sam and Dmitri also welcome feedback
08:21:40 <eparsons> q?
08:21:41 <kerry_> kerry_ has joined #sdw
08:21:42 <kerry__> kerry__ has joined #sdw
08:22:02 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
08:22:40 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
08:22:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
08:23:03 <Linda> ... let's move on to coveragejson work
08:23:44 <chunming> present+
08:25:20 <Linda> jonblower: doing this work in the context of Melodies project
08:26:21 <Linda> ... aim is to publish scientific data on the web in a way which lets web developers use it
08:27:15 <Linda> ...coveragejson is the data format we developed for this
08:28:12 <Linda> ... not oversimplified compared to eg NetCDF, but with linking capabilities etc
08:28:35 <Linda> ... specification, tools and libraries. The website the screen is showing is the frontend.
08:29:31 <Linda> ...also a cookbook, the best starting place.
08:29:51 <Linda> ...and a playground
08:31:01 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #sdw
08:31:09 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdw
08:31:42 <Linda> ...explains the covjson format
08:31:54 <billrobe_> https://covjson.org/playground/
08:33:41 <Linda> ... several strategies for when the data gets big
08:33:57 <Linda> ... (missed the first one)
08:34:13 <Linda> ... you can tile the data, split it up in multiple ways
08:34:15 <maik> (bug with Safari, try in Chrome/Firefox)
08:34:54 <eparsons> q?
08:35:35 <Linda> ... tools: js library for reading the format, plugin for leaflet, plugin for WIP virtual globe
08:35:44 <Linda> ...and others
08:36:24 <billrobe_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/
08:36:30 <Linda> ...we have a draft Note we're working on
08:37:09 <Linda> includes some thoughts on converting the covjson to RDF
08:37:24 <Linda> ...using JSON-LD
08:38:29 <Linda> ...its limited, parts like domain and range are difficult
08:38:43 <frans> q+
08:38:43 <jtandy> q+ to ask about the structure of the value arrays
08:38:50 <Linda> billrobe_: how do you see this in relation to existing OGC standards?
08:39:51 <Linda> jonblower: its an encoding format, not tied to OGC or others.  But with mapping between covjson and CIS its possible to use it with OGC services
08:40:23 <Linda> ... one dif is in covjson we allow multiple CRS.
08:40:54 <Linda> ...covjson is similar to datacube and a mapping between them would be interesting
08:40:58 <eparsons> ack next
08:41:40 <Linda> frans: how is metadata handled?
08:41:46 <phila> q+ to ask about relative merits of each approach
08:42:04 <frans> How interopeble are the different coverage solutions on the metadata level?
08:42:17 <billrobe_> q+ to ask about linking
08:42:23 <frans> s/interopeble/interoperable/
08:42:39 <Linda> jonblower: you have to decide how deep you want to go with metadata. At a minimum define the units of measure and things your measuring.
08:42:52 <roba> q+ to discuss RDF QB role
08:43:17 <Linda> ...not sure theres a single metadata set that fits everybody. Roba's profiles could be interesting.
08:43:31 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
08:43:34 <eparsons> ack next
08:43:35 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about the structure of the value arrays
08:44:26 <Linda> jtandy: a colleague has been using the spec to test it. He said the value range is always a single dimensional array, have you tried multidimensional?
08:44:35 <sangchul> sangchul has joined #sdw
08:45:15 <Linda> jonblower: decided it would be a bad idea to do this in json.
08:46:19 <frans> Isn't this a possible solution for the reuirement to have quality metadata for each value?
08:46:27 <Linda> ... with a single dimension array it's always trivial to check if it fits, with multi dimensional or nested arrays its difficult
08:46:36 <frans> s/reuirement/requirement/
08:47:09 <eparsons> ack next
08:47:10 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about relative merits of each approach
08:48:07 <Linda> phila: we're sort of looking at two things at different stages of maturity here: covjson has had more work put in than the ANU work
08:48:33 <Linda> ... how to decide which approach is better?
08:48:58 <Linda> ... is it possible to converge or bridge?
08:49:25 <Linda> jonblower: there's no competition in my eyes. We use JSON because that's where web developers live.
08:50:00 <Linda> ... roba and ANU have nice work on making these things more generic and richer
08:51:35 <frans> Could having the same metadata model allow convergence?
08:51:56 <AndreaPerego_> AndreaPerego_ has joined #sdw
08:52:13 <ahaller2_> ahaller2_ has joined #sdw
08:52:15 <Linda> Kerry: the ANU team came from a different direction.
08:52:42 <Linda> ...roba's formalizing dimensions for datacube
08:52:44 <jonblower> q+
08:53:24 <Linda> eparsons: we're having connectivity problems
08:54:25 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
08:54:32 <Linda> billrobe_: we should ask ourselves who it's for. That should help with choosing.
08:55:09 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
08:55:29 <frans> q+
08:55:31 <Linda> ... the spec should spell out what the target audience is for each approach
08:55:44 <eparsons> sorry connectivity problems in Lisbon
08:55:54 <eparsons> ack next
08:55:55 <Zakim> billrobe_, you wanted to ask about linking
08:56:29 <jtandy> q+
08:56:42 <Linda> jonblower: not too much choice though, a standard with too much choice is too difficult to implement.
08:56:45 <Linda> ... profiles would help
08:56:53 <frans> q-
08:56:56 <eparsons> ack next
08:56:57 <Zakim> roba, you wanted to discuss RDF QB role
08:57:24 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
08:57:40 <Linda> roba: there is a vocabulary for describing dimensions and measures
08:58:24 <Linda> ... the way to handle dimensions should be the same in covjson and RDF DQ, ie we should work on a mapping
08:58:43 <eparsons> ack next
08:59:04 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
08:59:29 <Linda> jonblower: true. The current mapping to RDF is not well developed, we should look at it more seriously in this light.
09:00:11 <Linda> ...also, interoperability is lossy.
09:00:17 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
09:00:43 <phila> issue: alignment between CoverageJSON and EO-QB for metadata, etc. What does the @context file for CovJson lead to
09:00:43 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-79 - Alignment between coveragejson and eo-qb for metadata, etc. what does the @context file for covjson lead to.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/79/edit>.
09:01:09 <eparsons> ack next
09:01:25 <eparsons> zakim, close queue
09:01:25 <Zakim> ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed
09:01:43 <Linda> jtandy: in the BP session we were trying to help people choose the right format for their data.
09:02:19 <Linda> ...covjson could be an example of making the right choices.
09:02:47 <Linda> jonblower: will be at metoffice in october, we chould have a chat about it
09:03:23 <eparsons> zakim, open queue
09:03:23 <Zakim> ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open
09:04:09 <Linda> billroberts: in covjson you can have a collection of coverages and there's a tiled approach, with each tile having a URL.
09:04:29 <Linda> ... is there a formalism for using fragment identifiers within a coverage?
09:04:50 <Linda> ... identifying a data point or a slice or dice is useful.
09:05:13 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
09:05:25 <Linda> jonblower: we've talked about extracts/subsets.
09:06:02 <Linda> bill roberts: issue 66 on github
09:06:23 <Linda> jonblower: are looking at identifiers for extracts, not an API for doing this
09:07:14 <Linda> ... works in coverage world, maybe not in general world. Not sure it will make it into the spec, not really mature.
09:07:46 <phila> q+ to ask about MIME type registration
09:08:07 <Linda> bill roberts: it would address the linkability requirement
09:08:30 <Linda> kerry: Chris Little has been talking about having named dices
09:09:00 <eparsons> ack next
09:09:01 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about MIME type registration
09:09:12 <Linda> ...could be considered to do something like this
09:09:19 <Linda> ...not native DQ
09:09:55 <phila> q-
09:10:21 <Linda> ... in ANU solution you can do sparql queries as well so user is able to get their own abstract, but this may be an unattractive solution.
09:10:35 <jonblower> Here's the issue on the CovJSON GitHub: https://github.com/covjson/specification/issues/66
09:10:56 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
09:11:06 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
09:11:33 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw
09:11:56 <Linda> jonblower: like Kerry thinking to have rectangular extracts
09:12:02 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
09:12:38 <chunming> chunming has joined #sdw
09:13:29 <phila_> phila_ has joined #sdw
09:13:52 <phila_> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:13:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila_
09:14:17 <eparsons> billroberts Working on FPWD
09:14:50 <eparsons> Kerry - Feedback on template requested
09:15:04 <Linda|2> Linda|2 has joined #sdw
09:15:09 <eparsons> kerry : Style in particular
09:15:36 <eparsons> phila_ : No use of "click here" please
09:16:15 <eparsons> phila_ Link should be name of doc for example
09:16:58 <eparsons> phila_ Are mime times registered for covJSON ?
09:17:10 <dmckenzie> dmckenzie has joined #sdw
09:17:17 <eparsons> jonblower No but helped would be great...
09:17:35 <eparsons> s/helped/help
09:17:44 <Werk_> Werk_ has joined #sdw
09:17:54 <eparsons> phila_ w3c process will be shared
09:17:55 <Werk_> https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
09:18:56 <jonblower> apologies that I can't return after the coffee break, I will be travelling, then
09:19:00 <jonblower> in meetings
09:19:16 <Werk_> Werk_ has left #sdw
09:19:28 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
09:19:31 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
09:26:53 <jungbin> jungbin has joined #sdw
09:33:52 <phila_> phila_ has joined #sdw
09:34:16 <Linda|2> Linda|2 has joined #sdw
09:34:49 <chunming> chunming has joined #sdw
09:37:28 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
09:40:45 <frans> frans has joined #sdw
09:40:56 <frans> present+ frans
09:41:23 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
09:43:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
09:50:34 <Linda|2> Linda|2 has joined #sdw
09:51:24 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
09:52:06 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
09:52:10 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
09:53:02 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
09:54:40 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
09:58:31 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
10:02:25 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
10:04:33 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
10:05:11 <Maxime> present+ Maxime
10:05:18 <dmckenzie> dmckenzie has joined #sdw
10:05:46 <eparsons> scribe: billroberts
10:06:27 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
10:06:36 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
10:07:07 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
10:08:12 <Linda|2> present?
10:08:13 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
10:08:15 <raphael> raphael has joined #sdw
10:08:50 <billroberts> Topic:SSN
10:09:00 <Linda|2> present+ Linda
10:09:11 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
10:09:15 <newton> newton has left #sdw
10:09:26 <billroberts> kerry: The SSN ontology was built some time ago through a W3C incubator group.
10:09:48 <AZ> present+ AZ
10:09:52 <billroberts> ...the objective of the SDW group in its charter is to deliver the SSN ontology as a standard
10:10:00 <billroberts> ...and to modularise it to make it simpler to use
10:10:11 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
10:10:40 <billroberts> ...This is on the REC track so we need at least two implementations of every term in the ontology
10:10:41 <AZ> I don't hear anything, can someone in Lisbon connect to the webex
10:10:53 <billroberts> ...and that has to be complete 7 months from now
10:11:23 <billroberts> ...We'll do that using a survey, to ask people if/how they are using each term
10:11:36 <billroberts> (Ed is trying to reconnect the webex)
10:12:22 <billroberts> ...Also we have agreed that any variants will be backward compatible to previous uses of SSN
10:12:25 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw
10:13:05 <billroberts> ...Other things in the landscape - there is a lot of demand and fast moving implementations in the Internet of Things area
10:13:29 <billroberts> ...many people are using SSN, but there is criticism about the size and complexity, so the modularisation should address that issue
10:13:42 <billroberts> ...Later today, the Web of Things working group is joining us for 2 hours.
10:14:28 <billroberts> ...In summary, I think we are going too slowly, and perhaps concentrating on the wrong things.
10:15:23 <billroberts> Topic: SOSA core goals
10:16:47 <billroberts> kerry: We decided early on to remove DOLCE from the ontology as it is a major challenge for usability
10:17:05 <billroberts> kerry: there is a proposal for a core of SOSA.  Armin will introduce
10:17:05 <ahaller2> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#Modularisation
10:17:43 <billroberts> ahaller2: We propose a vertical modularisation.  The details of naming in the SSN document are a little out of date but don't worry about that
10:18:20 <billroberts> ...the outer layers in the diagram at the above link are importing a lightweight core
10:19:05 <billroberts> ...So it could be reused easily in other things, eg schema.org or Web of Things
10:19:19 <eparsons> q?
10:19:31 <billroberts> ...SSN module will import the core as an ontology and extend it with concepts around sensor networks
10:19:35 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology
10:19:40 <billroberts> ...work so far is currently on the wiki
10:20:15 <billroberts> ...listing classes and properties that are included in the core
10:20:32 <billroberts> ...It's a dumbed-down version of SSN with one or two extra things
10:21:02 <billroberts> ...These classes already exist in SSN, so SSN can import this core with conflict to the semantics of SSN
10:22:12 <billroberts> ...There are no axioms in the core, to keep it lightweight
10:22:56 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
10:23:31 <billroberts> ...the wiki page is the consensus of the working group members that have been closely involved
10:25:57 <phila_> phila_ has joined #sdw
10:26:12 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: we'll need alignment or cross-linking from the new namespace to the old namespace to support people who made queries etc that used the old namespace
10:26:32 <billroberts> ahaller2: that alignment can be done in the higher level ontologies such as SSN
10:27:01 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: to support adoption we should do that alignment and support existing users
10:27:23 <eparsons> q?
10:27:30 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
10:27:45 <newton> newton has left #sdw
10:27:49 <billroberts> ahaller2: the main part of SSN will be untouched, so that should cover people using the old namespace.  They can transition to the new namespace if they want but they don't have to
10:29:25 <raphael> q+ to remind what's happen with the vcard namespace mess
10:29:35 <billroberts> kerry: we should have everything in one namespace and it should be the new SSN namespace
10:29:44 <eparsons> ack next
10:30:14 <billroberts> RaulGarciaCastro: the SSN ontology is the de facto standard. We take the risk of creating a new competing standard.
10:30:42 <billroberts> ....(and by the way 'SOSA' in Spanish means dull or boring!)
10:31:38 <billroberts> ...there have been decisions on conceptualisation, implementation, modularisation.  It would be easier to discuss if it could be divided up a bit
10:31:59 <eparsons> q?
10:32:11 <billroberts> kerry: agrees with Raul's point
10:32:45 <billroberts> kerry: there are a lot of changes, potentially confusing ones
10:33:08 <billroberts> ...we should start with SSN, pull it apart, then look individually at the various extensions
10:33:28 <billroberts> ...It's not an option to use the old namespace.  Best option would be to convert all terms to the same new namespace
10:33:50 <billroberts> ...Separating out the core to a different namespace could be confusing
10:33:57 <Maxime> q+
10:34:20 <billroberts> ahaller2: the namespace is not really important.  SSN namespace has to change and there will be a link back to the old one
10:34:42 <billroberts> ahaller2: the editors have proposed a core which is as simple and reusable as possible.
10:35:06 <billroberts> ...we can discuss the choice of specific terms according to feedback
10:35:27 <billroberts> ... but I don't think we need to go back to the start.  Just to discuss questions about the choice of individual terms
10:35:50 <eparsons> ack next
10:35:51 <Zakim> raphael, you wanted to remind what's happen with the vcard namespace mess
10:36:37 <billroberts> raphael: regarding the two namespaces for SSN, something similar happened in the past with Vcard.  There were 2 namespaces and it caused confusion for years as no-one knew which to use
10:37:39 <billroberts> phila: W3 process does not prevent use of purl.org as a namespace, but there are technical issues around use of purl, which looks like it is not going to be maintained
10:39:35 <billroberts> phila: purl redirects to a W3 URL. We could perhaps set up a redirect from that to some new place
10:39:40 <eparsons> ack next
10:40:31 <billroberts> Maxime: I am working in a European project with a large versioned vocabulary. We had one namespace that linked to multiple documents, each defining a set of concepts
10:40:46 <phila> present+ Achille
10:40:55 <billroberts> ...so there is no technical issue in having one namespace and separate modules in separate files
10:41:01 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:41:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
10:41:05 <jtandy> q+ to note that the sosa-core seems like it's simple enough to pick up and use even if you're not deep into RDF/OWL - which I like ...
10:41:29 <billroberts> ahaller2: the namespace choices were not really technical but because of the concepts addressed in the core, which are not really SSN realted
10:41:38 <eparsons> ack next
10:41:39 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that the sosa-core seems like it's simple enough to pick up and use even if you're not deep into RDF/OWL - which I like ...
10:41:48 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:41:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
10:42:32 <phila> q+ to talk about cores and timing
10:42:35 <billroberts> jtandy: I like the work on the core - it's simple for developers to use without having to worry about the axioms/Owl aspects.
10:42:35 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
10:42:37 <phila> ack me
10:42:37 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about cores and timing
10:42:38 <eparsons> ack next
10:43:06 <billroberts> phila: do you have a stable core that you are happy with and that is widely used? Are the non-core aspects less stable or less used?
10:43:24 <billroberts> kerry: no, the other way round. The 'extensions' are stable and used. The core is new so not yet used
10:44:20 <billroberts> phila: reminder that we only have 9 months left.  This is on REC track so needs implementations and that takes time.  You'll need to enter candidate-REC by Feb or March latest. So with holidays, that's only 2.5 working months left
10:44:44 <eparsons> q?
10:44:58 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
10:45:06 <billroberts> ...so needs decisions soon.  Best to focus on what is known to be used and needed for the REC
10:45:17 <billroberts> ...you've done a lot of work. Publish it soon
10:46:29 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: returning to the bridge to the old ontology, doing the alignment work is important for driving use
10:47:06 <billroberts> ...we need to demonstrate that it is really backward compatible, or we'll end up with another different standard
10:47:47 <billroberts> ahaller2: the new SSN plus an import of the unchanged DULCE extension will be the same as the old stuff
10:48:33 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
10:50:44 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: I have a lot of sensors and data using the old vocab.
10:51:04 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: querying a mix of old and new will lead to very messy queries
10:52:01 <eparsons> ack next
10:52:36 <billroberts> RaulGarciaCastro: best thing would be new ontology and mappings.  But in terms of timing, that is two new deliverables. Is that feasible?
10:55:20 <billroberts> ahaller2: so Danh's proposal is having two ontologies both with links back to old terms. Plus a Best Practice document explaining how to use
10:55:47 <billroberts> ahaller2: for modularisation, should they go in new sub-sections of the namespace?
10:55:47 <Maxime> q+
10:56:37 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: even changing of labels may cause backward compatibility issues
10:57:00 <billroberts> ahaller2: the description has to change because the semantics has changed - but it is in a new namespace, so it's a different term
10:57:30 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: lots of developers do text search and regular expressions to find data - they might not use URIs
10:57:54 <billroberts> ahaller: the label in SSN doesn't change.  Just the core
10:58:24 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: but confusing for people if there are two very similar but distinct terms
10:58:59 <billroberts> kerry: if you are using a lightweight part of SSN, you probably want it to be compatible with the rest of SSN, otherwise you wouldn't use SSN
10:59:52 <billroberts> kerry: are people going to understand what is intended by a term? if they are doing lightweight work, they will probably not do any reasoning, just want a properly defined term to use
11:01:02 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: different levels of semantic info: RDFS, OWL, semantic rules.  Depends on the capability of your processor
11:03:16 <ahaller2> q+
11:04:02 <eparsons> ack next
11:04:46 <billroberts> Maxime: methodology to modularise: this should be led by some requirements. Modules could define alignment to old ontology. Another could define alignment to DUL
11:05:22 <billroberts> ...could be a module to talk about actuators for example.  Should that be aligned to the old ontology?
11:06:51 <billroberts> ...comments and labels found in the new namespace might be different to the old ones
11:07:00 <billroberts> ...at lower levels there could be simpler descriptions of terms
11:07:08 <dmckenzie_> dmckenzie_ has joined #sdw
11:07:28 <eparsons> ack next
11:07:29 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
11:07:31 <billroberts> ...technically I'm not sure we need a new namespace
11:07:36 <ahaller2> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn#Property
11:08:00 <billroberts> ahaller2: I agree with you about labels. We need to change labels because the old ones referenced DULCE and we're taking that out.
11:08:08 <billroberts> kerry: also there are lots of spelling mistakes that need fixed
11:08:17 <eparsons> q?
11:08:32 <billroberts> ahaller2: we haven't yet decided on specific namespaces, only that they will be 'slash' namespaces.  Maxime's suggestion on implementation sounds good
11:09:27 <billroberts> ahaller2: we have changed descriptions of the terms in the core because they have much more lightweight semantics
11:09:52 <billroberts> ahaller2: and we have to remove references to other terms that will not be in the core
11:09:56 <eparsons> ack next
11:10:52 <billroberts> BartvanLeeuwen: should we record the things in the minutes where we have consensus?  Lots of discussions but we're not recording the conclusions
11:11:15 <Maxime> Requirement: have a core module that is very lightweight
11:11:17 <Maxime> Requirement: have other modules that are alignemnts to the old version of SSN.
11:11:19 <Maxime> Requirement: have a module that describe actuators
11:11:22 <Maxime> Requirement: when accessing the new namespace, one needs to access an ontology that is logically equivalent to the old ontology, with
11:11:28 <Maxime> the alignement to DUL, and that allows to lead the same entailments.
11:11:34 <Maxime> Constraint: the descrition of concepts in the different modules (for instance with/without DUL) cannot be the same (they will not have the same semantics)
11:12:13 <billroberts> BartvanLeeuwen: are we already talking to IoT people?
11:12:15 <billroberts> kerry: yes
11:13:04 <billroberts> raphael: can we have a simple table that lists the old terms and what we are doing with each term (eg moving to core, etc)
11:13:21 <billroberts> RaulGarciaCastro: I tried to do that but it was too difficult
11:13:36 <billroberts> raphael: if we can't do that, it is indicating a problem
11:14:54 <billroberts> phila: re spelling mistakes needing correction. We can't change purl.org but we can change the thing it points to
11:15:09 <billroberts> kerry: plan to leave old stuff as is, and make a new better one
11:15:26 <billroberts> phila: we can probably make things work if it's worth doing
11:16:05 <billroberts> Topic: SSN top-down
11:16:31 <billroberts> kerry: early on we pulled out DULCE from the ontology. Several people didn't like the previous modularisation
11:16:48 <billroberts> ...first attempt wasn't right
11:17:19 <billroberts> ...a few weeks ago I went back to the original SSN and pulled out DULCE.
11:17:40 <billroberts> ...it changes DULCE to the new namespace for DULCE which has changed in the mean time
11:17:46 <billroberts> ...uses the new W3 namespace
11:18:07 <billroberts> ...From a process point of view, I'd like to start there for modularisation
11:18:34 <billroberts> ...then we can be very explicit about tracking changes and documenting reasons for changes
11:18:59 <billroberts> ...given delivery dates, I'd like to prioritise that before making any deeper changes
11:19:47 <frans> q+
11:19:49 <phila> q+ to ask an awkward question
11:19:53 <billroberts> ...I think that's the only strategy that will allow us to know what we're doing and be able to discuss changes one at a time
11:20:14 <billroberts> ...let's decide as a group what the modules need to be and look for volunteers to work on each one
11:20:19 <eparsons> ack next
11:20:20 <billroberts> ...the modularisation is the most important thing
11:20:32 <AZ> s/DULCE/DOLCE/
11:20:56 <billroberts> frans: are you planning to record provenance of terms?
11:21:21 <eparsons> ack next
11:21:23 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask an awkward question
11:21:23 <billroberts> kerry: old ontology is very good at describing provenance
11:21:43 <billroberts> (AZ - many thanks for the correction and explanation! I think I was getting confused about those two things)
11:23:08 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc volunteers to document alignment of new ontology with existing ontologies including PROV-O and Time
11:23:17 <billroberts> ...and coverage
11:24:06 <Maxime> q+
11:24:11 <eparsons> ack next
11:25:11 <Maxime> can anyone add me as a collaborator on the github project ? maximelefrancois86
11:25:22 <billroberts> Maxime: will help on this
11:25:39 <billroberts> kerry: we need to agree what the content of the modules will be
11:26:11 <billroberts> Maxime: we can follow Raul's suggestion of going through the terms one by one and deciding for each
11:26:25 <billroberts> ahaller2: agree we need to decide what modules
11:26:41 <eparsons> q+
11:26:45 <billroberts> ahaller2: shouldn't have too many different modules.  A lot could be in main SSN
11:27:14 <billroberts> eparsons: regarding new modules and that you are on the REC track so need implementations, can you prioritise those parts that are most likely to be adopted quickly?
11:27:27 <billroberts> kerry: we're talking about terms that are already in use, we're just moving them around
11:27:53 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
11:27:57 <billroberts> eparsons: do you have to prove that people are using your new modularisation? (rather than the old stuff)
11:28:07 <billroberts> kerry: don't think so
11:28:14 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
11:28:20 <eparsons> ack ack next
11:28:23 <eparsons> ack next
11:28:45 <billroberts> kerry: we need the modules first, then the extensions
11:28:53 <billroberts> kerry: implementation of extensions is more significant
11:29:42 <billroberts> phila: the things you can get implemented are the bits that go in the REC track document. You can separate out not-yet-implemented aspects into a Note or other document
11:30:36 <Maxime> q+
11:31:38 <eparsons> ack next
11:32:33 <billroberts> DanhLePhuoc: the previous version was not formally standardised. Need evidence of implementation of the old terms
11:32:47 <eparsons> ack next
11:34:02 <billroberts> phila: would be neater to have separate documents rather than one document with non-normative sections
11:34:17 <billroberts> ...(for implemented and not-yet-implemented parts)
11:35:23 <raphael> The alternative approach presented by Kerry is at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated
11:35:49 <billroberts> kerry: there are few things in there that need urgent attention.
11:36:14 <billroberts> ...and there are some errors in SSN that should be corrected
11:36:26 <billroberts> eparsons: go ahead and fix those errors
11:37:32 <billroberts> general approval from the meeting that kerry should fix the errors she listed
11:38:45 <raphael> Details are: delete the explicit statements that says that a concept is a subClassOf owl:Thing (e.g. FeatureOfInterest)
11:39:47 <raphael> In the DOLCE alignments, PhysicalObject need to be changed to Objects
11:39:51 <eparsons> +1
11:39:52 <Linda|2> +1
11:39:52 <raphael> +1
11:39:57 <DanhLePhuoc> =1
11:39:58 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
11:40:03 <jtandy> +0 ... not sure of implications
11:40:03 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
11:40:04 <AZ> +1
11:40:06 <phila> +1
11:40:14 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
11:40:39 <Maxime> prcision: In the DOLCE alignments, sensor subclassOf PhysicalObject need to be changed to sensor subclassOf Object
11:41:09 <billroberts> time for lunch.  Restart at 1.30 local time
11:42:37 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
11:42:45 <kerry_> kerry_ has joined #sdw
11:46:45 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
11:49:48 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
11:59:58 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
12:28:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
12:33:52 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
12:34:37 <AZ> AZ has joined #sdw
12:34:53 <eparsons> Returning from Lunch - Dialling webex now !
12:35:59 <frans> frans has joined #sdw
12:36:33 <Linda|2> Linda|2 has joined #sdw
12:37:27 <AZ> present+ AZ
12:37:41 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
12:37:54 <Linda> present+ Linda
12:38:55 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
12:39:04 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
12:39:05 <phila> phila has joined #sdw
12:41:17 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
12:45:27 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
12:45:34 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
12:45:52 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
12:46:36 <phila> scribe: phila
12:46:44 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:47:03 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:47:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
12:47:37 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
12:47:55 <phila> Topic: What topics are modules built around?
12:47:55 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
12:48:13 <phila> kerry: Maybe now is a good time to do the use cases discussion
12:48:16 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
12:48:45 <phila> Topic: SSN Use Cases & Requirements
12:48:53 <frans> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1
12:48:58 <phila> frans: Yesterday we talked about the UCR with 6 open issues
12:49:16 <phila> frans: 2 remaining  issues open
12:49:22 <phila> issue-77?
12:49:22 <trackbot> issue-77 -- New SSN requirement: programming/tasking and actuation -- open
12:49:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/77
12:49:25 <phila> issue-78?
12:49:25 <trackbot> issue-78 -- New SSN requirement: SSN usage examples? -- open
12:49:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/78
12:49:39 <phila> frans: These two seem not have been recorded for the new SSN
12:50:40 <phila> frans: Issue-77. I'm not in touch with the details...
12:51:28 <phila> phila: How can you use a vocab to program and actuation
12:51:41 <phila> kerry: Concept is to model the capabilities and control of a sensing device
12:51:54 <phila> ... It's an old SSN req that wasn't implemented but it's back through WoT
12:51:58 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
12:51:59 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
12:52:12 <phila> kerry: I think it needs to be there
12:52:19 <eparsons> ack next
12:52:38 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: I roughly understand. But task/programming is confusing.
12:52:52 <ahaller2> q+
12:52:54 <phila> ... I think this is modelling
12:53:15 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
12:54:11 <phila> kerry: Tasking is on OGC word. An implementation might be, here's an interface where you can attach code
12:54:15 <eparsons> q+
12:54:35 <phila> frans: Is the programming only related to actuation?
12:54:45 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: You can change the rate of acquisition, etc.
12:55:40 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: Some sensors have features you can... send some parameters... that's what people need
12:56:11 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: There may be serial tasks, sequences of tasks. I think there was a task ontology some years ago.
12:56:23 <phila> frans: So are tasking and programming different things?
12:56:34 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: Tasking is more like sequencing
12:56:40 <eparsons> ack next
12:56:56 <phila> BartvanLeeuwen: DO we have enough knowledge and time to do this?
12:57:11 <phila> kerry: It's trivial to do what's proposed in SOSA core. Whether it's useful...
12:57:25 <phila> ... There are certainly examples of this being done
12:57:34 <phila> ... It's not hard, but we don't have an implementation
12:57:45 <phila> eparsons: So this is not currently in SSN
12:58:11 <phila> kerry: It was in the old requirements but never implemented
12:58:39 <phila> eparsons: So you'd have to come up with a way of meeting this requirements, then you have to prove implementation within the time we have.
12:59:07 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
12:59:09 <phila> kerry: Were not going to meet all the requirements, in realit.
12:59:20 <phila> kerry: I think it's easy to do a simple solution.
12:59:23 <eparsons> q-
12:59:34 <phila> ... I think Danh will do an implementation.
12:59:44 <phila> ... and WoT can do one I think
12:59:49 <eparsons> ack next
12:59:57 <phila> kerry: I suspect this is a high priority from the SSN Group
13:00:09 <phila> ahaller2: Maybe you can make it more specific
13:00:41 <phila> ahaller2: There could be a simple on/off property
13:01:22 <phila> q?
13:01:27 <chu> chu has joined #sdw
13:01:32 <phila> frans: Sop this requirement will only focus on actuation.
13:01:39 <dmckenzie> dmckenzie has joined #sdw
13:01:45 <phila> kerry: That's fine
13:01:54 <jtandy> s/Sop/So/
13:02:23 <DanhLePhuoc> proposal the description for Issue #77: A new requirement for SSN is proposed: It should be possible to model actuation functions of sensing devices.
13:02:35 <ahaller2> +1
13:02:42 <eparsons> +1
13:02:44 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
13:02:46 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
13:02:48 <jtandy> +1
13:02:50 <raphael> raphael has joined #sdw
13:02:54 <frans> +1
13:02:57 <Linda> +1
13:02:58 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
13:02:58 <phila> PROPOSED: the description for Issue #77: A new requirement for SSN is proposed: It should be possible to model actuation functions of sensing devices
13:02:59 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
13:03:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
13:03:10 <phila> RESOLUTION: the description for Issue #77: A new requirement for SSN is proposed: It should be possible to model actuation functions of sensing devices
13:03:25 <Maxime> present+ Maxime
13:03:25 <phila> ISSUE-78
13:03:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- New SSN requirement: SSN usage examples? -- open
13:03:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/78
13:03:36 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdw
13:03:48 <frans> topic: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/78
13:04:34 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
13:04:37 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
13:04:49 <ahaller2> +1
13:05:06 <frans> proposal: add ssn req: There should be examples of how the SSN ontology can be used together with other vocabularies.
13:05:12 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
13:05:18 <Maxime> +1
13:05:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
13:05:22 <frans> +1
13:05:34 <phila> RESOLUTION: add ssn req: There should be examples of how the SSN ontology can be used together with other vocabularies.
13:05:40 <kerry> +1
13:06:08 <phila> action: frans to act on resolution of issues 77 and 78
13:06:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Act on resolution of issues 77 and 78 [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-09-27].
13:06:15 <phila> close issue-77
13:06:15 <trackbot> Closed issue-77.
13:06:20 <phila> close issue-78
13:06:20 <trackbot> Closed issue-78.
13:07:31 <phila> phila: Asks about timing of future UCR publication
13:07:43 <phila> frans: Couple of weeks or so
13:08:31 <phila> eparsons: It's going to be the final draft, at least that's the intention
13:08:41 <phila> q?
13:09:15 <phila> Topic: What topics are modules built around? (for real this time)
13:09:22 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Work_on_the_SSN_ontology
13:10:03 <phila> kerry: What actually is a module, what goes into one
13:10:26 <phila> ... We think we have a core and then outside that is topic-specific modules and I want to get an understanding of what those modules are
13:11:03 <phila> kerry: Modules that are too big can be a problem
13:11:20 <phila> kerry: The famous image is a modularisation that doesn't really exist
13:11:47 <phila> ... For me it's obvious that the deployment on the top left is a module, some people care, others don't.
13:12:06 <phila> ... On the right...  some survival range and operating range
13:12:22 <phila> q+
13:12:33 <ahaller2> q+
13:12:46 <phila> kerry: There's the datasheet that says how a sensor will perform in different environments.
13:13:10 <phila> ... That area might be able to be hived off
13:13:36 <phila> maxime: Feature of interest and property can be used alone.
13:13:41 <phila> kerry: That's tiny
13:13:45 <phila> Maxime: Yes
13:14:01 <eparsons> q?
13:14:52 <phila> [discussion of 'property']
13:14:57 <eparsons> ack next
13:16:58 <Maxime> q+
13:17:59 <eparsons> ack next
13:18:07 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
13:18:21 <phila> phila: Probes into what modules are, why not just use what's there? What effect will users see if you drew the boxes differently?
13:18:32 <phila> [Bit of discussion]
13:18:33 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
13:18:54 <phila> phila: You can have multple docs defining terms in a single namespace (IMHO)
13:18:56 <eparsons> ack next
13:18:56 <jtandy> q+ to ask what the downsides of not modularising are?
13:19:28 <phila> Maxime: I think there's more in modularisation that drawing boxes. If you take out DUL, you remove axioms like feature and @@ aree disjoint
13:19:30 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:20:05 <phila> Maxime: You have an object of interest that's a fridge, and then you want to talk about the frequency of the voltage. It is a property of the fridge?
13:20:19 <phila> kerry: I'd be happy, not sure of OGC folks would be.
13:20:38 <eparsons> ack next
13:20:40 <phila> Maxime: It's not the properties, it's the axioms
13:20:43 <RaulGarciaCastro> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_conceptual_modules#Overview_of_the_conceptual_modules
13:20:57 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
13:21:47 <phila> RaulGarciaCastro: Describes his diagram
13:22:09 <Maxime> +1
13:22:19 <DanhLePhuoc> -q
13:23:22 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
13:23:49 <phila> RaulGarciaCastro: Maybe we go through the use cases and see which modules are needed.
13:24:11 <eparsons> ack next
13:24:13 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask what the downsides of not modularising are?
13:25:11 <phila> jtandy: What prob;em occurs if we don't modularise. I know we want core, O&M, etc as axioms in other modules might conflict. I'd modularise of the governance or maintenance sections for example are going to be different.
13:25:44 <phila> ... but breaking it up into chunks makes sense for explanation and usage, but I don't know the pros and cons
13:25:52 <phila> ... If we don't split it, what do we lose.
13:26:06 <phila> Maxime: If we don't split, when do we know it was right.
13:26:36 <phila> jtandy: If an implementation only uses part of that, and references classes they don't use, is there an extra burden?
13:27:02 <ahaller2> +1 great summary jtandy
13:27:08 <eparsons> q?
13:27:20 <phila> ... Simplicity wins. We're talking about cutting it up into smaller pieces - why?
13:27:23 <eparsons> ack next
13:27:42 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: We only have 20 classes
13:28:03 <phila> ... So we don't need to ask people to import several things, but I think there's a separation in usage.
13:28:38 <frans> q+
13:28:44 <phila> ... If I just want to use 3, I don't see why I need to import the other 17
13:29:43 <phila> kerry: So if I'm hearing this right, it would all be in the same file, but outside that, we'd expect DULCE alignment, @@ alignment, UoM etc.
13:29:58 <phila> RaulGarciaCastro: We can take the decision about what is core.
13:30:34 <phila> kerry: There is one core.
13:30:59 <phila> jtandy: This morning we talked about SOSA core that doers't have axioms beyond the simple.
13:31:12 <phila> ... That's the first level of the Sem Web stack
13:31:30 <eparsons> q?
13:31:39 <phila> ... In the editors draft there's that target diagram
13:32:03 <ahaller2> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#Modularisation
13:32:08 <phila> ... Is this diagram we're looking at
13:32:51 <phila> jtandy: I think some of the boxes in the complex diagram we see exist in the blue box, pink box etc.
13:33:58 <phila> jtandy: It seems that SOSA core seems to have the simple stuff I'd need.
13:34:29 <phila> ... Looking at the other diagram and deciding what's in the core...
13:34:44 <phila> kerry: Modulo the details...
13:34:50 <eparsons> ack next
13:35:01 <phila> frans: It seems that modularisation makes the diagrams smaller
13:35:31 <phila> frans: Perhaps it's possible to modularise the explanations without modularirising the ontology.
13:35:55 <phila> kerry: Do we have a decision?
13:37:26 <RaulGarciaCastro> We will have a core module that contains a subset of the concepts in the current SSN ontology; we don’t plan to split the current SSN ontology into different files; and potentially we will have modules that extend the ontology (e.g., O&M)
13:38:26 <jtandy> q+
13:38:35 <jtandy> q+
13:39:05 <jtandy> q-
13:39:10 <RaulGarciaCastro> The modules that extend the ontology will be in different files
13:39:21 <phila> Points of agreement
13:39:32 <phila> - There will be a core module that is a subset of SSN
13:39:39 <Maxime> my understanding: core, ssn, extra, alignment X, alignemnt Y, ...
13:39:41 <phila> - There will be an extension file
13:39:50 <phila> - there will be room to add more modules, such as O&M
13:40:25 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdw
13:40:54 <jtandy> so ... the Sensor Network Module imports the SOSA-Core module? yes?
13:41:53 <Maxime> my updated understanding: core, ssn, alignment O&M, alignemnt DUL, ... where alignements are the "extra" parts and in the non normative parts of the doc
13:44:17 <jtandy> q+ to point out that we previously talked about a SSN Primer as a NOTE ...
13:44:38 <eparsons> ack next
13:44:39 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to point out that we previously talked about a SSN Primer as a NOTE ...
13:46:52 <phila> phila: AIUI - you want a 'normative' section that defines the well implemented 'core' properties. Then there is a section on extensions, with examples. These will not be part of the formal standard but will introduce terms to the single namespace
13:49:21 <phila> phila: AIUI - you want a 'normative' section that defines the well implemented 'core' properties. Then there is a section on extensions, with examples. These will not be part of the formal standard but will introduce new terms
13:51:49 <phila> Topic: 'RecordOfObservation' vs 'ActivityOfObserving'
13:52:12 <phila> kerry: We discussed this a little in the last SSN meeting.
13:52:24 <jtandy> q+ to give my opinion when keery has done the intro
13:53:03 <frans> s/keery/Kerry/
13:53:26 <ahaller2> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305809446_Pitfalls_in_alignment_of_observation_models_resolved_using_PROV_as_an_upper_ontology
13:53:52 <phila> kerry: This potentially a big change being proposed for SSN
13:55:18 <phila> Kerry: The key point of the concept of an observation in SSN is deliberately different from O&M concept. That difference is either serious or irrelevant...
13:55:41 <phila> ... The difference is how an observation in interpreted wrt the act of observing
13:56:06 <phila> kerry: SSN took the view that it was a record, not an action
13:56:26 <phila> ... For many purposes it doesn't matter
13:56:48 <phila> ... After SSN, Simon created O&M Light. He took an observation as an event.
13:57:15 <phila> .... It becomes an issue when SSN gets aligned with DOLCE
13:57:40 <phila> ... We're taking DOLCE out so that's not a problem
13:57:45 <jtandy> 9 when looking to align O&M and SSN with PROV-O ... Simon says: "PROV-O provides just three base classes: Entity, Activity and Agent. om:Observation is sub-classed from prov:Activity, while ssn:Observation is sub-classed from prov:Entity."
13:58:01 <phila> Kerry: But if you align with, say, PROV....
13:58:17 <jtandy> s/9 //
13:58:26 <phila> Kerry: Prov of data and other systems, you get access to the SSN info as part of that provenance chain.
13:58:34 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
13:58:36 <phila> ... This makes the observation an entity
13:58:47 <phila> Kerry; In DOLCE they're disjoint
13:58:56 <phila> ... In PROV an activity can be an entity
13:59:02 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw
13:59:07 <phila> ... But the O&M observation it matters
13:59:22 <phila> ... independently, Simon did an alignment with PROV.
13:59:44 <phila> ... When we did it, we introduced an 'Activity of Sensing'
13:59:54 <phila> ... That can be associated with the O&M observation
14:00:05 <phila> ... It gets ugly
14:02:43 <phila> [Kerry moves to the whiteboard]
14:03:30 <phila> -> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1401/paper-05.pdf Sensor Data Provenance: SSNO and PROV-O
14:03:30 <phila> Together at Last
14:03:58 <phila> kerry: SSN has an observation as a sub class of entity, O&M has it as a sub class of activity
14:04:37 <phila> ... The jump between the two you need mappings and rules - which gets ugly.
14:04:45 <newton> newton has left #sdw
14:04:53 <phila> eparsons: What if you give up on aligning them?
14:04:58 <phila> kerry: I can do better than that.
14:05:34 <phila> kerry: Simon made a proposal to just say they're the same but I don't think that works.
14:06:14 <phila> kerry: I want to take advantage of entity and activity not being disjoint
14:06:24 <eparsons> q?
14:06:32 <ahaller2> q+
14:06:38 <eparsons> ack next
14:06:39 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to give my opinion when keery has done the intro
14:06:43 <phila> ... We can just say that O&M and SSN Observation are the same thing. That's OK in Prov. Ontologically suspect but practical
14:07:03 <jtandy> I think ... For me, it seems natural to treat Observation as an Activity ... it's something that's done at a particular time using a specified process. It produces a some data (the result) ... the data, an information resource, is an Entity. SSN seems unnecessarily complex in splitting the problem into SensorOutput, Observation and ActivityOfSensing; OM does this in two classes: Result and Observation.
14:07:04 <phila> [Scribe realises I must have misunderstood what Simon said]
14:08:22 <phila> kerry: ActivityOfSensing doesn't exist in SSN
14:08:49 <phila> ... It was proposed as a way of doing the alignment but it seems overly complicated.
14:09:07 <Maxime> q+
14:09:15 <phila> kerry: I'd be happy with saying don't bother but I don't think others would be.
14:09:30 <phila> ... We need to take account of other people's opinions
14:09:44 <phila> eparsons: If it's documented what you mean...
14:09:47 <phila> kerery: it is
14:09:48 <Maxime> q-
14:10:09 <phila> eparsons: Users can deal with the issue of they're made aware of it. Should we have to solve it?
14:10:13 <ahaller2> s/kerery/kerry
14:10:25 <phila> danbri: Is there lots of O&M data?
14:10:36 <phila> jtandy: Yes, It has a lot of data in OGC and ISO
14:11:22 <phila> kerry: Simon has proposed an RDF representation
14:11:32 <phila> s/kerry/jtandy
14:12:04 <phila> q+
14:12:13 <eparsons> ack next
14:12:27 <phila> ahaller2: I think there's a lot of reason to align the modules
14:12:36 <phila> ... How we do it, I'm agnostic
14:12:53 <phila> ... We have to change the DOLCE alignment anyway
14:13:01 <phila> kerry: No, I don't see a reason for doing that.
14:13:23 <phila> kerry: In Prov, it's OK to be an activity and an entity
14:13:28 <phila> ahaller2: But not DOLCE
14:13:31 <phila> kerry: No.
14:13:47 <jtandy> q+
14:13:56 <phila> kerry: I think there is an event class in DOLCE
14:14:13 <phila> kerry: DOLCE requires them to be disjoint, Prov doesn't
14:14:19 <eparsons> ack next
14:14:27 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
14:14:45 <Maxime> so SSN+DUL will be incompatible with SSN+O&M, and that's it ? if these are two different extensions, that's maybe no big deal
14:16:55 <phila> [Discusses changing SSN to match O&M]
14:16:58 <eparsons> ack next
14:17:05 <danbri> q+ to ask about nature of SSN deployments (e.g. is it in hardware production etc?)
14:17:45 <phila> jtandy: Would you be upset if SSN Observation were a sub class of prov:Activity
14:17:55 <phila> kerry: No, but why
14:18:17 <phila> jtandy: In O&M the definition begins with it as an event
14:18:25 <ahaller2> q+
14:18:31 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+ to ask whether our goal is to ensure that every potential extensions of the SSN ontology must be compatible among them
14:18:56 <danbri> q?
14:18:57 <phila> Maxime: I care about the result of this discussion...
14:18:59 <eparsons> ack next
14:19:00 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask about nature of SSN deployments (e.g. is it in hardware production etc?)
14:19:00 <phila> ack danbri
14:19:18 <phila> danbri: SSN deployment - sounds as if O&M is well deployed.
14:19:32 <phila> ... What's the installed base for SSN?
14:19:49 <phila> Kerry: It's not a standard itself.
14:20:07 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: There a sensor manufacturers using it, with JSON-LD
14:20:10 <eparsons> q?
14:20:30 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:20:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:20:41 <phila> danbri: Are there major stakeholders you could consult?
14:20:54 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: I know Siemens are doing this. I know one M2M
14:21:28 <phila> danbri: Would it make sense to identify the top users and go and ask them?
14:22:33 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: There's a plugfest with Fujistu tomorrow
14:23:51 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: I think I can collect some usage infoi
14:24:42 <phila> eparsons: I think you say we have two choices...
14:24:58 <phila> jtandy: I suggest "we're thinking of doing this, would it disturb you?"
14:25:37 <phila> jtandy: I think we propose tentatively to convert ssn:Observation to a sub class of prov:Activity, and ask at least 3 people.
14:25:49 <phila> ... Question is, would this change cause massive problems?
14:26:00 <phila> kerry: And the other option is, do nothing?
14:26:05 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: I prefer that way.
14:26:49 <phila> kerry: The do nothing approach is to say that O&M and SSN Observation are the same thing but if you use Prov then you need to recognise that it's both Activity and Entity
14:28:14 <phila> PROPOSED: To either (1) align with O&M (Observation is activity) or (2) say O&M and SSN Observation are the same thing
14:28:30 <danbri> is the suggestion that (SSN) Observation be refined to treat it as a kind of action/event/activity, bringing it closer to O&M's notion of Observation (and e.g. also prov Activity)?
14:28:35 <phila> PROPOSED: To either (1) align with O&M (Observation is activity) or (2) say O&M and SSN Observation are the same thing but leave described as they are in their own spaces
14:28:42 <eparsons> q?
14:28:47 <eparsons> ack next
14:28:57 <phila> ahaller2: DOLCE has an event, it can't be an entity
14:29:13 <jtandy> SOSA Core currently says ...
14:29:14 <jtandy> sosa-core:Observation
14:29:14 <jtandy>   rdf:type owl:Class ;
14:29:14 <jtandy>   rdfs:comment "Activity of carrying out an (observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a Property of a FeatureOfInterest. Links to a Platform or Sensor to describe what made the Observation and how; links to an ObservableProperty to describe what the result is an estimate of, and to a FeatureOfInterest to detail what that property was associated with; the Result is the output."@en ;
14:29:14 <jtandy>   rdfs:comment "An Observation carries out an (observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a Property of a FeatureOfInterest. Links to a Platform or Sensor to describe what made the Observation and how; links to an ObservableProperty to describe what the result is an estimate of, and to a FeatureOfInterest to detail what that property was associated with; the Result is the output."@en ;
14:29:16 <jtandy>   rdfs:label "Observation"@en ;
14:29:16 <jtandy> .
14:29:27 <phila> [More discussion]
14:29:40 <phila> kerry: There would be an impact on DOLCE alignment.
14:29:44 <danbri> ("entity" here meaning dolce's notion of entity, rather than something broader approximating 'thing'?)
14:30:20 <phila> PROPOSED: To either (1) align with O&M (Observation is activity) or (2) say O&M and SSN Observation are the same thing but leave described as they are in their own spaces
14:30:28 <Maxime> 1
14:30:31 <jtandy> vote : (1)
14:30:37 <danbri> 1
14:30:37 <Linda> 1
14:30:55 <ahaller2> 1
14:31:12 <DanhLePhuoc> 1
14:31:30 <RaulGarciaCastro> 1
14:31:34 <jtandy> (on behalf of Kerry = 2)
14:31:41 <eparsons> 1
14:32:05 <eparsons> q?
14:32:25 <RaulGarciaCastro> q-
14:32:34 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
14:32:40 <phila> RESOLUTION: The ssn:Observation will be redefined as an activity, in line with O&M Observation
14:32:55 <newton> newton has left #sdw
14:33:16 <phila> jtandy: Consequently, there will need to be work to realign with DOLCE
14:33:17 <danbri> (do we still get this sanity-checked with top 3 SSN stakeholders?)
14:33:43 <jtandy> q+
14:33:45 <phila> action: kerry to redefine ssn:Observation and update alignment with DOLCE
14:33:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Redefine ssn:observation and update alignment with dolce [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-09-27].
14:33:48 <eparsons> ack next
14:34:29 <phila> jtandy: We've just made a decision. We should make sure that our vocab is reviewed by current users, incl, say, Siemens.
14:35:06 <phila> Topic: Future Face to face meetings
14:37:38 <phila> Discussion around WWW 2017, 3-7 April
14:37:57 <AZ> audio is gone
14:37:59 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
14:38:11 <ahaller2> trying to get you back
14:44:42 <phila> Meeting in December, London 12-13 December. Prob then in March 21-22 in Delft, TBC
14:44:50 <phila> [Coffee Break]
14:44:58 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:44:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:45:03 <eparsons> Back at 16:00
14:45:53 <eparsons> Thanks AZ see you so
14:46:14 <eparsons> NP :-)
14:46:16 <AZ> enjoy Lisbon
14:51:46 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
14:52:26 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
14:58:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
15:03:14 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
15:04:29 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
15:06:58 <Maxime> Maxime has joined #sdw
15:09:43 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
15:10:07 <Kerry> Kerry has joined #Sdw
15:11:57 <Kerry> Introductions..
15:12:10 <Kerry> Chair:Kerry
15:14:17 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
15:14:34 <AndreaPerego> scribe: AndreaPerego
15:14:34 <victor> victor has joined #sdw
15:14:41 <AndreaPerego> scribeNick: AndreaPerego
15:14:44 <phila> scribeNick: AndreaPerego
15:14:53 <phila> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:14:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html phila
15:15:10 <AndreaPerego> kerry: We need to discuss about decisions that may have implications for both groups.
15:16:07 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
15:16:14 <DarkoAnicic> DarkoAnicic has joined #sdw
15:16:22 <andreic> andreic has joined #sdw
15:16:33 <AndreaPerego> andreic: I can give a short introduction on the work done so far.
15:16:40 <phila> Topic: Joint Session with WoT IG
15:16:51 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
15:17:07 <Kerry> Topic : web of things update
15:17:19 <AndreaPerego> ... f2f meeting will be thu - fri. You're welcome to join.
15:17:40 <AndreaPerego> ... each f2f will have also a practical session to show what we are doing.
15:18:12 <phila> present+ DarkoAnicic, victor, chunming, andreic
15:18:21 <AndreaPerego> ... IoT means different devices, and how to connect such devices.
15:18:40 <AndreaPerego> ... we are working also on enabling interoperability at the application layer.
15:19:08 <AndreaPerego> ... today we have a number of standards bodies working on different standards and platforms.
15:19:41 <AndreaPerego> ... our goal is to build a set of building blocks so that such standards and platforms are able to use them and be interoperable.
15:19:55 <Kerry> Q+
15:20:32 <phila> ack k
15:20:39 <AndreaPerego> .... in other words, we want to bridge these standards and platforms.
15:22:04 <AndreaPerego> ... (responding to kerry) we don't want to provide different solutions for each of these standards / tools, but to set up re-usable and sharable building blocks.
15:22:12 <DanhLePhuoc_> DanhLePhuoc_ has joined #sdw
15:25:03 <AndreaPerego> ... (describing the building blocks) building blocks include: application script layer (interoperability of scripts across devices), resource model (abstraction of properties and actions for devices), protocol bindings.
15:25:56 <AndreaPerego> ... Notion of "thing description" plays a central role in the framework.
15:26:09 <DarkoAnicic> TD current practices: http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html#thing-description
15:26:17 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #sdw
15:26:34 <sebastian> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch@Siemens
15:27:38 <frans> q+
15:27:48 <AndreaPerego> .... Why we need it? This is needed to know what kind of data you serve, who you are, how you can access data/function, what kind of functions are available, protocols, encodings, which are the security constraints (if any).
15:28:05 <frans> q-
15:28:18 <AndreaPerego> s/andreic:/DarkoAnicic:/
15:29:12 <Kerry>  Q?
15:29:27 <AndreaPerego> ... The thing description describes the resource model, the protocol bindings, and the WoT servient (client/server role).
15:30:02 <AndreaPerego> ... This allows also to avoid all the work around embedded programming.
15:31:00 <AndreaPerego> .... Thing descriptions include descriptive metadata, security-related info (e.g., security token), supported protocols and data formats.
15:31:26 <AndreaPerego> .... Thing descriptions are provided in JSON-LD.
15:32:30 <AndreaPerego> ... The JSON-LD context mechanism allows to provide also contextual information that is important for operating the device.
15:33:12 <AndreaPerego> .... Also JSON binary formats exist.
15:34:18 <AndreaPerego> ... (describing JSON-LD snippet).
15:34:24 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
15:35:19 <Kerry> Q?
15:35:29 <Kerry> q?
15:36:05 <frans> q+
15:37:02 <AndreaPerego> victor: About the ontology, this includes two different contexts, one defined by [missed it] and one that can be used in order to define your own context.
15:37:19 <AndreaPerego> frans: Do you have predefined contexts people can use?
15:37:23 <Maxime> ack next
15:37:39 <AndreaPerego> victor: Yes.
15:38:31 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: Information like UoM can be imported from other contexts as well.
15:38:53 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
15:38:53 <AndreaPerego> frans: Have you also location information?
15:39:19 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: Not really, but you can extend it with location information, by reusing an existing vocabulary.
15:39:40 <Maxime> q+
15:40:07 <AndreaPerego> .... One part of the work is devoted to discovery.
15:40:45 <Kerry> Q+
15:41:13 <AndreaPerego> ... In the future we'll have events where you can bring your own vocabulary (e.g., location), and we'll play with them (e.g., to find devices in a given location).
15:41:28 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: Are you then agnostic wrt the vocabularies used?
15:42:38 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: Yes, we have a vocabulary that needs to be used for making things work, but then you can add other vocabularies.
15:43:07 <AndreaPerego> Maxime: Are in this way limiting the extensibility of the thing description?
15:44:47 <AndreaPerego> ... I have some concerns about the fact that the thing description denotes both the representation and the presentation of the "thing".
15:44:59 <ahaller2> +1 to maxime's concern
15:45:56 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: A component of the architecture includes a thing description repository, meant to register and discover things descriptions (TDs).
15:45:58 <Maxime> ack next
15:46:37 <Kerry> Q-
15:46:43 <Kerry> Q?
15:47:47 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: You can extend TDs with other semantic models.
15:47:59 <Maxime> q+
15:48:42 <AndreaPerego> ... This can be done for infos concerning application models, domain-dependent models, domain-independent models.
15:49:00 <Kerry> Q?
15:49:02 <AndreaPerego> q?
15:49:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
15:49:19 <Kerry> Ack Maxime
15:49:21 <phila> phila has joined #sdw
15:49:24 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
15:50:02 <AndreaPerego> Maxime: About UoM there are different vocabularies that may be incompatible. How you solve these possible conflicts?
15:50:29 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: We don't have a solution - this is a normal problem with standards.
15:53:09 <newton> newton has left #sdw
15:53:11 <AndreaPerego> ... So, it's out of scope of our WG.
15:53:14 <Kerry> Q+
15:54:07 <AndreaPerego> danbri: What about specific domains (e.g., agriculture)? Can you deal with them?
15:55:25 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: No, this is not in the WG scope - we don't define domain-specific properties. We focus on the TD, that is domain-independent.
15:56:02 <AndreaPerego> sebastian: The TD is like the index.html page of a Web site. It's an entry point to know what the device can provide.
15:56:19 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: Is there any protocol to negotiate the change of context?
15:56:51 <AndreaPerego> ... How you can find out who can speak that language?
15:57:35 <ahaller2> q+
15:57:43 <danbri> (agriculture for example, http://agroportal.lirmm.fr/ http://www.agrisemantics.org/ … are very relevant to WoT apps but are not presented as IoT/WoT initiatives; it is good that that Thing Description architecture seems open-ended for such things to be included.
15:57:44 <danbri> )
15:58:40 <ahaller2> q-
15:59:19 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: You can, e.g., import SSN, then the other thing discover yours, and then it has to fetch the context to know about SSN.
16:00:16 <AndreaPerego> ... The discovery can be done also on the additional vocabularies that have been used.
16:00:32 <Kerry> Q?
16:01:43 <Kerry> Ack Kerry
16:03:25 <AndreaPerego> victor: There's a proposal for an IoT ontology based on DUL.
16:03:59 <AndreaPerego> ... there's an alignment problem that should be solved by SSN [missed which is that]
16:05:04 <AndreaPerego> s/IoT ontology/WoT ontology/
16:05:31 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: We can standardise the WoT ontology in the work on SSN.
16:05:55 <Kerry> Q?
16:06:36 <DanhLePhuoc_> +q
16:06:52 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:07:24 <Kerry> Wot should be standalone
16:07:45 <Kerry> Ack dang
16:07:50 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
16:09:16 <Kerry> Q?
16:09:23 <Maxime> q?
16:09:29 <Maxime> ack next
16:09:59 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: Do you consider alignments to be your task, or rather this should be done by other communities?
16:10:26 <AndreaPerego> victor: The idea is this should be done by communities using these "things".
16:10:59 <Kerry> Q+
16:11:09 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: This may be an opportunity to optimise the alignments planned in SSN.
16:11:15 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
16:12:05 <DanhLePhuoc_> +q
16:12:18 <AndreaPerego> RaulGarciaCastro: SSN is not covering the digital representation of the "thing" (i.e., the TD).
16:12:45 <Maxime> major difference: ssn:Device is a physical thing, whereas wot2:Thing would be its digital mirror
16:12:58 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: We can also use alignments in schema.org.
16:14:04 <sebastian> we consider both, a wot2:Thing can be physical or virtual
16:14:43 <AndreaPerego> danbri: The problem is that this is covering too many domains.
16:15:58 <Maxime> ack next
16:16:14 <Kerry> Ack DanhLePhuoc_
16:17:42 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
16:19:20 <AndreaPerego> DanhLePhuoc_: (showing a discovery example)
16:20:01 <AndreaPerego> victor: This shows the use of one of the discovery APIs - in this case a SPARQL endpoint.
16:20:02 <danbri> …. it passes in a basic sparql-based pattern (as an example at least)
16:21:13 <ahaller2> q+
16:21:18 <Kerry> +
16:21:21 <Kerry> Q+
16:24:19 <AndreaPerego> ack next
16:25:56 <Kerry> Ack Armin
16:26:51 <AndreaPerego> ahaller2: Coming back to SSN, we may need to link back to your TD, or vice versa.
16:27:57 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: Yes, and you can use also a generic property ("has description").
16:28:08 <AndreaPerego> sebastian: Which can be the scenario for this?
16:28:26 <AndreaPerego> ahaller2: To show which is the origin of the observations.
16:29:08 <DanhLePhuoc_> +q
16:29:13 <AndreaPerego> ... And maybe to know how to access the sensor.
16:29:37 <Kerry> Ack DanhLePhuoc_
16:29:46 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:29:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:30:46 <Kerry> Q?
16:30:57 <AndreaPerego> DanhLePhuoc_: May be worth knowing a bit the agenda and the timing for your work, so we can try to align our efforts.
16:32:57 <Maxime> q+
16:33:10 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: WoT to be a WG in october, and 1st f2f end of this year / beginning of next year.
16:35:58 <AndreaPerego> q+
16:37:28 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
16:37:59 <Kerry> Ack Kerry
16:38:08 <Kerry> Ack Kerry
16:38:09 <AndreaPerego> sebastian: We have 3-4 f2f meetings every year.
16:39:30 <Kerry> Q?
16:39:45 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: The next f2f is very likely to be in the US. But we can arrange a "plug feast" where anyone can partecipate.
16:40:25 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
16:41:12 <frans> s/partecipate/participate/
16:41:26 <Kerry> Ack Maxime
16:41:59 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:41:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:43:03 <AndreaPerego> Maxime: May be worth checking if SSN and WoT are talking the same language - this would help better understand what needs to be done.
16:43:38 <victor> victor has joined #sdw
16:44:38 <ahaller2> s/plug feast/plug fest
16:45:03 <frans> q+
16:45:10 <Kerry> Ack Andrea
16:47:24 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego: About the property to link observations and TDs, this may already exist, e.g., in PROV-O.
16:47:25 <frans> q-
16:47:41 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: Yes, but if we define one in SSN this would be "stronger".
16:48:49 <frans> q+
16:49:18 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:49:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:49:57 <frans> q-
16:51:34 <AndreaPerego> DarkoAnicic: You're also very welcome to join our meetings here at TPAC, also to send a message to the WG.
16:52:39 <AndreaPerego> Kerry: (describing the re-design of SSN)
16:56:40 <AndreaPerego> ... (going through the source in GH).
16:59:40 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:59:55 <Maxime> http://ci.emse.fr/pep/
17:00:47 <Maxime> SOSA-Core https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/sdw/kjanowicz-ssn/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
17:01:22 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:02:36 <andreic> andreic has left #sdw
17:05:16 <AndreaPerego> WoT IG wiki: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki
17:06:39 <frans> action: kerry to propose a property in SSN to link to WoT TD
17:06:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Propose a property in ssn to link to wot td [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-09-27].
17:08:29 <frans> action: Kerry to make an agenda item to analyze the difference between TD between SSN
17:08:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Make an agenda item to analyze the difference between td between ssn [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-09-27].
17:08:58 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:08:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:09:27 <frans> action: Kerry to plan to use WoT plugfests to do SSN implementation
17:09:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Plan to use wot plugfests to do ssn implementation [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-09-27].
17:09:48 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:09:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:11:54 <AndreaPerego> meeting closes
17:12:27 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, make logs public
17:12:34 <AndreaPerego> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:12:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:59:52 <Phila> Phila has joined #sdw
18:00:18 <Phila> Rrsagent, draft minutes
18:00:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html Phila
18:01:20 <Phila> Rrsagent, generate minutes
18:01:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html Phila
19:21:40 <danbri> danbri has joined #sdw
22:58:35 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
23:02:14 <newton_> newton_ has joined #sdw
23:02:41 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
23:04:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw
23:10:04 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw