20:52:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:52:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/01-sdwssn-irc
20:52:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:52:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:52:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
20:52:07 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
20:52:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:52:08 <trackbot> Date: 01 November 2016
20:54:41 <KJanowic> KJanowic has joined #sdwssn
20:56:48 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
20:59:29 <KJanowic> preseent+ Kjanowic
20:59:34 <KJanowic> present+ Kjanowic
21:01:46 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
21:02:36 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
21:02:45 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
21:02:55 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
21:07:47 <ahaller2> scribe ahaller2
21:07:57 <ahaller2> scribe: ahaller2
21:08:30 <SimonCox> scribe+ ahaller2
21:08:31 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdwssn
21:09:27 <ahaller2> agenda: patent call
21:09:45 <ahaller2> agenda: Import/Non-import of modules in the onion layers of the SSN ontology
21:09:59 <ahaller2> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#modularisation
21:11:04 <kerry> present+ kerry
21:13:37 <SimonCox> If modules that import (SOSA-)core demonstrate implementation, wouldn't that suit?
21:13:47 <KJanowic> q+
21:13:57 <SimonCox> q+
21:14:42 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:14:44 <SimonCox> ahaller2: notes difficulty with having reliance on SOSA-core because of lack of evidence of implementation (can't be normative)
21:15:13 <ahaller2> KJanowic: still believe that SOSA should be in the core and in the normative part
21:15:33 <ahaller2> ... I think the alignment would break the axioms
21:15:37 <SimonCox> KJanowic: difficulty with simultaneously aligning to old SSN and DOLCE and O&M - will break axioms in DOLCE
21:16:10 <kerry> q+
21:16:18 <SimonCox> ahaller2: new SSN would not import alignment graph
21:16:27 <SimonCox> q-
21:16:48 <KJanowic> but we will stell switch back and forth on the meaning of those classes, right?
21:16:48 <SimonCox> q+
21:16:55 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:17:03 <KJanowic> s/stell/still
21:17:26 <ahaller2> kerry: this gymnastics is all about getting implementations
21:17:37 <SimonCox> kerry: alignment is all about re-using the old implementations as evidence
21:17:38 <KJanowic> +1 on getting new implementations
21:17:40 <ahaller2> ... convince ourselves that we get new implementation
21:17:47 <SimonCox> q-
21:17:52 <ahaller2> q+
21:18:06 <ahaller2> ... we can get implementations for the SOSA core
21:18:46 <KJanowic> I can provide implementation on sosa-core. I am just totally scared of having the same class, e.g., observation, with 3 different meanings no matter whether the alignment is optional.
21:19:15 <ahaller2> ... proposed the alignment about 6 months ago already
21:19:53 <ahaller2> ... implement at least a fraction of what we are trying to do
21:20:13 <KJanowic> q+
21:20:13 <SimonCox> kerry: keep DOLCE alignment out of normative rec-track
21:20:21 <ahaller2> ... alignment to DOLCE in a seperate document
21:20:24 <KJanowic> +1
21:20:55 <KJanowic> +1 to sosa-core being normative and essential
21:20:58 <SimonCox> kerry: SOSA-core is absolutely essential, needs to be normative
21:21:14 <SimonCox> +1
21:21:14 <ahaller2> q?
21:21:19 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:21:20 <KJanowic> +1 on that!
21:21:58 <SimonCox> ahaller2: would prefer to keep alignments out of normative docs
21:22:25 <SimonCox> ahaller2: alignment with old SSN is desirable to document changes
21:22:27 <kerry> q+ to ask if we are seriously going to look for implmentations of the non-core parts of new ssn
21:22:37 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:22:38 <SimonCox> ... but in non-normative part for now?
21:23:12 <kerry> q+ to disagree that sos-core is ready to go
21:23:32 <ahaller2> KJanowic: lot of work gone into the SOSA core. Let's start talking about implementations now.
21:23:42 <SimonCox> Needed in SOSA-core: decision on whether sub-classing is included ...
21:24:14 <ahaller2> ... new observation concept can not link to the old one
21:24:20 <ahaller2> q+
21:25:03 <ahaller2> ... if the axiom is there it will make some unwanted asssertions
21:25:09 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:25:09 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to ask if we are seriously going to look for implmentations of the non-core parts of new ssn and to disagree that sos-core is ready to go
21:25:10 <KJanowic> s/sos-core/sosa-core
21:25:28 <SimonCox> KJanowic: if there is any axiom anywhere that aligns new sosa:Observation with old ssn:Observation then sosa:Observation cannot be an Event, because of OWL inconsistency with DOLCE ...
21:25:30 <ahaller2> s/sos-core/sosa-core
21:25:46 <KJanowic> but for me there is no difference between ssn and sosa-core. These are just names. We can call sosa-core ssn-core if this fixes the issue.
21:26:39 <KJanowic> @kerry: but we can work on that
21:27:12 <ahaller2> q?
21:27:18 <ahaller2> ack ahaller2
21:27:23 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:27:49 <SimonCox> kerry: SOSA-core definitely not ready to go - would vote -1 right now, suspect many other would too
21:27:57 <KJanowic> but will there be a relation between newssn:observation and oldssn:observation?
21:28:42 <KJanowic> Agreed
21:28:49 <SimonCox> ahaller2: SOSA-core has not been discussed in wider SDWWG-SSN group
21:28:52 <ahaller2> q?
21:29:22 <SimonCox> q+
21:29:43 <SimonCox> q-
21:29:52 <kerry> q+
21:29:59 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:30:06 <KJanowic> +1 on what ahaller2 just said, namely having sosa-core (ssn-core) in the normative part, as core of ssn, aligned with the new SSN and not having the DUL alignment in the normative part
21:30:22 <SimonCox> KJanowic: asked - "will there be a relation between newssn:observation and oldssn:observation?" - ahaller2 says "non-normative"
21:30:31 <SimonCox> is that good enough KJanowic ?
21:30:53 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwssn
21:31:50 <ahaller2> kerry: agree with, Raul has offered to look into doing a survey of old implementations. By the end of the year.
21:31:52 <KJanowic> @simonCox: it is not clear of what non-nromative means for the formal semantics of OWL
21:32:21 <KJanowic> axioms don't care about whether they are normative or not, they either imply something or they don't
21:32:33 <ahaller2> ahaller2: in terms of relation between newssn:observation and oldssn:observation, there is none! therefore no alignment there
21:32:49 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:32:50 <KJanowic> +1 to no relation
21:33:02 <SimonCox> s/nromative/normative/
21:33:23 <ahaller2> agenda: Current SOSA core, scope of terms
21:33:29 <ahaller2> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
21:33:42 <SimonCox> kerry: alignment axioms (equivalence) will constrain SOSA-core
21:34:00 <kerry> q+ to ask krystof about how much he can live with inconsistent normative or not alignments
21:34:34 <SimonCox> q+
21:34:47 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
21:35:04 <KJanowic> q+
21:35:04 <SimonCox> Suggest avoiding 'Process' because in BFO Process is an occurrent
21:35:57 <KJanowic> this is about magnitude not information vs. non-information resource
21:36:06 <SimonCox> (though Process used in this way would be aligned with SensorML)
21:36:09 <ahaller2> q?
21:36:11 <ahaller2> q+
21:37:41 <SimonCox> ack kerry
21:37:41 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to ask krystof about how much he can live with inconsistent normative or not alignments
21:37:43 <KJanowic> kerry: not because I want to be mean but because there may be disjointness axioms hidden there
21:38:14 <SimonCox> q- to let KJanowic respond first
21:38:24 <ahaller2> q-
21:38:38 <SimonCox> q+ to discuss use of word "Process" vs "Procedure"
21:40:21 <ahaller2> ack KJanowic
21:41:00 <SimonCox> KJanowic: normative vs non-normative OK for humans, but will trip up m2m usage
21:41:16 <ahaller2> KJanowic: if the file sits somewhere our ontology becomes inconsistent
21:41:53 <ahaller2> q?
21:42:01 <SimonCox> ahaller2: propose no alignment for concepts where there is a conflict - only have alignment axioms where there is real equivalence
21:43:03 <ahaller2> KJanowic: Procedure vs Process. There is one thing that is the cooking recipe how to make the sensor work and then each observation done using the same procedure is comparable.
21:43:41 <SimonCox> Does "procedure" include either the sensor type, or even sensor instance KJanowic ?
21:43:42 <ahaller2> ... every time you follow the procedure, instantiation. It is a workflow.
21:43:52 <ahaller2> q+
21:43:59 <ahaller2> ack SimonCox
21:43:59 <Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to discuss use of word "Process" vs "Procedure"
21:45:09 <ahaller2> SimonCox: naming is less important than to agree what it is
21:45:17 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:45:25 <SimonCox> ... Procedure is a re-usable thing
21:45:26 <ahaller2> http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/wfmc/ARCHIVE/DOCS/glossary/gloss2.gif
21:45:30 <KJanowic> This is what we had as text "A workflow, protocol, plan, algorithm, or computational method specifying how to set up an Observation, take a Sample, or make a change to the state of the world (via an Actuator). A Procedure is re-usable, and might be involved in many observations, samplings, or actuations. It explains the steps to be carried out to arrive at reproducible results. Put differently, millions of observations may be created via the same Proced[CUT]
21:46:18 <KJanowic> My problem with 'process' is its meaning wrt event, action, and so forth. Process is a perdurant.
21:46:38 <ahaller2> q?
21:46:44 <KJanowic> Do we agree that an observation is the carrying out of the procedure/process?
21:46:57 <ahaller2> +1
21:47:07 <KJanowic> great
21:47:27 <kerry> q+ to note som,ething important p[recedurally
21:47:30 <DanhLePhuoc> +q
21:47:35 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:47:35 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to note som,ething important p[recedurally
21:47:55 <ahaller2> s/som,ething/something
21:48:14 <ahaller2> s/p[recedurally/procedurally
21:48:32 <SimonCox>  ... or 'an observation is an event that utilises or executes the procedure/process'
21:48:54 <SimonCox> (that was in response to KJanowic)
21:49:52 <ahaller2> q?
21:50:10 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:50:59 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: I asked before, are we using RDF(S) or are we using some OWL in here, inverse, meta
21:51:03 <ahaller2> q?
21:51:38 <ahaller2> q?
21:52:03 <kerry> q+
21:52:09 <KJanowic> super difficult discussion, would be better to open this up to the group
21:52:23 <KJanowic> I would leave it as it is
21:52:33 <KJanowic> e.g., sosa-core:Observation   rdf:type owl:Class ;
21:52:51 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: make the formal semantics clear
21:53:07 <kerry> +1 to open it up
21:53:29 <KJanowic> q+
21:53:33 <kerry> +1 make sure the agenda is clear for each meeting
21:53:36 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
21:53:37 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:53:56 <KJanowic> q-
21:54:24 <KJanowic> fine with me
21:55:02 <DanhLePhuoc> +Q
21:55:11 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:55:35 <SimonCox> Weekly meetings from now on ok from me +1
21:55:48 <DanhLePhuoc> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103200_103299/103264/01.01.01_60/ts_103264v010101p.pdf
21:55:59 <DanhLePhuoc> https://sites.google.com/site/smartappliancesproject/ontologies/reference-ontology
21:56:40 <kerry> q+
21:57:01 <kerry> q+
21:57:09 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: reached out to them already
21:58:03 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:58:50 <ahaller2> kerry: happy to get involved with her
22:00:25 <ahaller2> ... contact monica and have a chat about the status of the ETSI smart appliances ontology
22:00:44 <ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc: also potentially an evidence of implementation
22:01:54 <ahaller2> q?
22:01:56 <SimonCox> THanks folks - useful meeting
22:01:57 <KJanowic> Thanks a lot for the productive meeting today. Bye, Bye
22:02:16 <ahaller2> RRSAgent, make logs public
22:02:20 <ahaller2> RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:02:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/01-sdwssn-minutes.html ahaller2
22:03:40 <ClausStadler_> ClausStadler_ has joined #sdwssn
22:35:46 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn