20:49:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:49:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-sdwssn-irc
20:50:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:50:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:50:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
20:50:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
20:50:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:50:03 <trackbot> Date: 15 November 2016
20:54:28 <ahaller2> present+ ahalller2
20:59:49 <Kjanowic> Kjanowic has joined #sdwssn
21:00:39 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
21:01:05 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
21:01:09 <Kjanowic> present+ KJanowic
21:02:22 <kerry> kerry has joined #sdwssn
21:02:44 <kerry> present+ kerry
21:06:02 <SimonCox> present+ SimonCox
21:07:16 <Kjanowic>  can
21:07:19 <Kjanowic> I can
21:07:32 <ahaller2> scribe: Kjanowic
21:07:52 <ahaller2> approve minutes: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-sdwssn-minutes
21:07:53 <SimonCox> +1
21:07:57 <kerry> +1
21:07:58 <ahaller2> +1
21:07:59 <Kjanowic> +1
21:08:16 <ahaller2> minutes approved
21:08:19 <ahaller2> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
21:09:09 <ahaller2> topic: SOSA core to use inverseOf (vote), owl:Class (vote)
21:09:14 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
21:10:31 <Kjanowic> Last meeting we discussed inverseOf and owl:class versus rdfs:class. Currently we have inverseOf in SOSA-Core. We had detailed discussion of these issues and many people voiced their  support for having inverseOf in SOSA-core. An alternative would be to use annotation properties.
21:10:42 <kerry> q+
21:10:59 <ahaller2> Vote: The pair are not to be axiomatically  related but documentation is to be used to make the  inverse intention clear
21:11:13 <Kjanowic> We will first vote on the weaker one, i.e., only using annotation property. then we will vote on using inverse of directly
21:11:24 <SimonCox> If you remove the 'not' clause
21:11:31 <Kjanowic> -1
21:11:31 <ahaller2> +1
21:11:32 <kerry> +1
21:11:42 <SimonCox> I object to the 'not' clause
21:11:45 <DanhLePhuoc> -
21:11:48 <ahaller2> q?
21:11:51 <DanhLePhuoc> -1
21:12:08 <ahaller2> (B)   The pair are related and documentation is to be used to make the  inverse intention clear
21:12:11 <Kjanowic> (assuming -1 means I am in favor of the owl:inverseOf axioms and not just using annotation property)
21:12:24 <SimonCox> Yes - that's better
21:12:31 <Kjanowic> ahaller2: can you restate the vote?
21:13:18 <Kjanowic> kerry: not exactly what we discussed last time. Lets restate this.
21:13:20 <Kjanowic> q+
21:13:51 <Kjanowic> KJ: The 3 people on the mailing list voted for "I would support using owl:inverseOf".
21:14:03 <ahaller2> (C)    The pair is to be related by an owl:InverseOf declaration;
21:14:03 <kerry> ack kerry
21:14:06 <Kjanowic> ahaller2: I was addressing simon's 'not' concern
21:14:23 <Kjanowic> q+
21:14:27 <SimonCox> (C) +1
21:14:33 <Kjanowic> +1 for C
21:14:33 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
21:14:33 <SimonCox> (B) 0
21:14:37 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:15:30 <Kjanowic> Ahaller: only consider (B) and (C)
21:15:33 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:15:47 <Kjanowic> Ahaller: will post them again
21:16:16 <Kjanowic> Danh: inverseOf versus informally using annotation property
21:16:29 <Kjanowic> ahaller: yes, like a comment
21:16:39 <Kjanowic> ahaller: must not be an owl annotation property
21:17:04 <Kjanowic> danh: basically you do not use the formal semantics of owl for inverse of but just a documentation
21:17:10 <Kjanowic> ahaller2: yes
21:17:18 <ahaller2> q?
21:17:33 <Kjanowic> ahaller2: two options: one uses the formal semantics of owl, the other simply being a human readable comments
21:18:00 <Kjanowic> danh: I support the formal inverseOf (also if you do not use owl semantics it will not harm anything)
21:18:06 <ahaller2> (1)  The pair are related but documentation (comment, annotation property) is to be used to make the inverse intention clear
21:18:07 <Kjanowic> kj: +1 to what danh said
21:18:24 <ahaller2> +1
21:18:26 <Kjanowic> ahaller: please only on +1 vote per item
21:18:31 <kerry> +1
21:18:31 <SimonCox> -1
21:18:33 <Kjanowic> _1
21:18:35 <Kjanowic> -1
21:18:45 <DanhLePhuoc> -1
21:18:46 <ahaller2> (2)  The pair is to be related by an owl:InverseOf declaration
21:18:51 <ahaller2> +1
21:18:51 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
21:18:52 <kerry> 0
21:18:52 <Kjanowic> +1
21:19:31 <Kjanowic> s/ahaller: please only on +1 vote per item/ [...]
21:19:53 <SimonCox> Annotation is OK, axiomatic relationship is better
21:19:55 <Kjanowic> ahaller: 3 people on the list voted already for formally using inverseOf
21:20:04 <SimonCox> +1
21:20:18 <Kjanowic> ahaller: okay, so we voted to use owl:inverseOf  in SOSA-core
21:20:36 <Kjanowic> ahaller: we have had a detailed discussion so we can close this issue now
21:20:50 <Kjanowic> 72
21:20:55 <Kjanowic> issue-72 resolved
21:21:55 <Kjanowic> ahaller: second issue is owl class but now this is easy because we already used owl:inverseOf now
21:22:16 <kerry> resolved: issue-72 use owl:inverseOf to declare inverse object properties in SOSA-core
21:22:17 <Kjanowic> ahaller: we are already using a construct with owl formal semantics
21:22:28 <Kjanowic> ahaller: we had detailed discussions about this already
21:23:00 <Kjanowic> we will now vote on using owl:class or rdfs:class, or both
21:23:10 <ahaller2> (1) exclusively RDFS Classes or (2) exclusively use OWL:Classes (3) use both
21:23:18 <Kjanowic> q+
21:23:25 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:23:56 <ahaller2> (1) exclusively RDFS Classes
21:23:58 <Kjanowic> kj: option one would conflict with our previous vote
21:24:02 <Kjanowic> -1
21:24:05 <DanhLePhuoc> -1
21:24:07 <kerry> 0
21:24:08 <SimonCox> (2) - OWL classes +1
21:24:09 <ahaller2> 0
21:24:16 <SimonCox> 0
21:24:17 <ahaller2> (2) exclusively use OWL:Classes
21:24:18 <Kjanowic> +1
21:24:21 <SimonCox> +1
21:24:25 <kerry> 0
21:24:28 <ahaller2> +1
21:24:29 <DanhLePhuoc> -1
21:24:31 <Kjanowic> kj: which includes rdfs:classes, see the mails
21:24:42 <ahaller2> (3) use both
21:24:45 <kerry> +1
21:24:45 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
21:24:48 <Kjanowic> -1
21:24:54 <ahaller2> 0
21:25:22 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
21:25:29 <Kjanowic> ahaller: using both does not hurt
21:25:30 <Kjanowic> q+
21:25:51 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:25:51 <Kjanowic> kj: but AZ also showed that owl:class will imply rdfs:class anyway (or by direct usage)
21:26:02 <kerry> q+
21:26:48 <Kjanowic> [Danh, you are being cut of, I have trouble summarizing what you say]
21:27:09 <kerry> Danh is correct --- there are other ways of doing it too but it does not come for free
21:27:25 <Kjanowic> q+
21:27:40 <ahaller2> Danh: if you don't use RDFS:class explicitly if you don't use a reasoner it causes overhead
21:27:43 <ahaller2> q?
21:27:46 <ahaller2> ack KJ
21:28:42 <ahaller2> Kjanowic: rdf:type will assert rdfs:class
21:29:30 <Kjanowic> Danh: may still cause trouble, e.g., when combined with domain and range
21:29:53 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:30:22 <Kjanowic> vote result: (1) -2 votes (2) +2 votes (3) +1 votes
21:30:45 <ahaller2> q?
21:31:00 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
21:31:10 <Kjanowic> kerry: I do not see any harm in declaring both
21:31:42 <ahaller2> ex:myClass  a  rdfs:Class, owl:Class
21:31:46 <Kjanowic> ahaller: basically: kj are you the only one objecting both?
21:32:07 <ahaller2> q?
21:32:41 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:32:45 <Kjanowic> happy to change my vote if this helps us to move on
21:33:48 <ahaller2> q+
21:33:56 <Kjanowic> KJ: Our vote was for owl-only but it was close and we are missing people like rob that would have probably voted for (3). thus, I would be willing to change to 3 if this would make the rest happy and allow us to move on.
21:34:02 <ahaller2> ack ahaller
21:34:05 <Kjanowic> Danh: version 3 is better for future use
21:34:40 <Kjanowic> ahaller: I said 0 initially, but I can also change. My concern is adding axioms that do not really do anything
21:34:47 <Kjanowic> ahaller: ahppy to say +1
21:34:48 <ahaller2> q?
21:34:57 <Kjanowic> kj: okay, if this makes everybody happy
21:35:11 <Kjanowic> kj: can we do a new vote?
21:35:14 <Kjanowic> q+
21:35:33 <kerry> RESOLVED: that classes in sosa-core are declared as both owl:Class and rdfs:Class  issue-72
21:35:53 <Kjanowic> q+
21:35:54 <ahaller2> topic: Documentation tool for SOSA and SSN, proposal: https://github.com/specgen/specgen
21:36:07 <Kjanowic> ahaller: lets move on to the documentation discussion
21:36:17 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:37:25 <Kjanowic> q-
21:37:29 <ahaller2> s/ahppy/happy
21:37:41 <kerry> q+
21:37:51 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:37:53 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
21:37:58 <Kjanowic> Ahaller: any other tools that you would like to propose?
21:38:17 <Kjanowic> Kerry: have not used it but saw others use it
21:38:20 <Kjanowic> q+
21:38:25 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:38:55 <Kjanowic> Danh: I would not vote for the previous one. We should try specgen.
21:38:57 <ahaller2> Ack Kjanowic
21:39:12 <ahaller2> Kjanowic: I propose to make this an action
21:39:46 <Kjanowic> Kerry: I can do so.
21:40:09 <kerry> action: kerry to try specgen on ssn and dulce alignment for WD
21:40:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-219 - Try specgen on ssn and dulce alignment for wd [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-11-22].
21:40:23 <kerry> action: armin to try specgen on sosa-core
21:40:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-220 - Try specgen on sosa-core [on Armin Haller - due 2016-11-22].
21:40:24 <ahaller2> q?
21:40:26 <Kjanowic> thanks kerry
21:40:48 <Kjanowic> Ahaller: moving on to next topic.
21:40:53 <ahaller2> topic: [ISSUE 85 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85]
21:41:03 <kerry> q+
21:41:16 <Kjanowic> [ a lot of background noise]
21:41:49 <Kjanowic> kerry: ssn:System has both a someValues from and an AllValues from restriction on hasSubSystem.
21:41:57 <ahaller2> ahaller2: apologies, the first one is an SSN issue, not a SOSA issue
21:42:02 <Kjanowic> kerry:  I think it is wrong
21:42:04 <Kjanowic> q+
21:42:32 <Kjanowic> kerry: I think technically it is wrong, also does not make sense as documentation
21:42:44 <Kjanowic> kerry: I propose to remove the existential restriction
21:42:45 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:43:02 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:43:41 <ahaller2> Kjanowic: this is an axiom stating that the subsystem can also be a supersystem
21:43:52 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
21:43:53 <Kjanowic> kj: like the difference between part and propert part
21:43:57 <kerry> q+
21:44:05 <Kjanowic> kj: also we have to revisit the axiom. using  for
21:44:19 <ahaller2> ack DanhLePhuoc
21:44:53 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:45:36 <Kjanowic> kj: Also we have to revisit the axiom. Using  forAll alone together with equivalentClass also will cause problems (I would have to revisit the axiom)
21:45:45 <Kjanowic> ahaller: should we postpone
21:45:59 <Kjanowic> kj: I would vote on postponing
21:46:00 <Kjanowic> yes
21:46:06 <Kjanowic> I can look into this
21:46:10 <DanhLePhuoc> +1 for posting it
21:46:13 <ahaller2> topic: [ISSUE 86 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86]
21:46:35 <DanhLePhuoc> posting/postponing
21:47:02 <kerry> q+
21:47:07 <Kjanowic> ahaller2: we can change the level of detail of the documentation
21:47:08 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:47:31 <Kjanowic> kerry: I have a lot of problem with the featureofinterest property
21:47:57 <Kjanowic> kerry: why are we reducing this to something that states less. why dont we use the annotation that we already have?
21:48:22 <Kjanowic> kerry: cannot see why we need two different documentations
21:48:42 <Kjanowic> ahaller: there may be different documentations wherever ssn and sosa differ
21:48:49 <Kjanowic> ahaller: kj, simon?
21:48:50 <kerry> q+ to ask armin to repeat i could not understand that
21:48:54 <ahaller2> q?
21:48:58 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:48:58 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to ask armin to repeat i could not understand that
21:49:15 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn#FeatureOfInterest
21:49:38 <Kjanowic> the original is very short
21:50:02 <Kjanowic> kj: is this about the relationship or the class? I am confused?
21:50:19 <Kjanowic> ahaller: we have both
21:50:44 <ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn#featureOfInterest
21:50:54 <Kjanowic> simon: in OGC land the object of a foi property would be a feature.
21:50:56 <Kjanowic> q+
21:51:06 <ahaller2> q?
21:51:11 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:51:56 <kerry> q+
21:52:23 <Kjanowic> Kj: FOI is a cubclass of F and this is very neat for querying
21:52:36 <ahaller2> s/cubclass/subclass
21:52:50 <Kjanowic> simon: I see. This is also a good response to kerry's question
21:53:17 <Kjanowic> simon: at last for the 'why is it different part'
21:53:35 <Kjanowic> kerry: I am not asking about the difference to OGC but SSN
21:54:05 <Kjanowic> ahaller: as we do not have domain and range we add a bit more in terms of comments, etc. in SSN full we can infer some of those things
21:54:17 <Kjanowic> kj: +1 , yes this is what I said
21:54:31 <Kjanowic> ahaller: do we need to split this into multiple comments?
21:54:35 <kerry> q+
21:54:40 <Kjanowic> q+
21:54:48 <kerry> +1 to consistent examples
21:54:53 <ahaller2> ack kerry
21:54:56 <Kjanowic> ahaller: we should have examples for all classes and properties
21:55:36 <Kjanowic> kerry: there is other parts in the SSN should be added. I like the idea of examples but they have to be systematic
21:55:38 <Kjanowic> q+
21:55:50 <Kjanowic> but we have more?
21:56:06 <Kjanowic> I have a question to kerry before she leaves
21:56:08 <kerry> bye!!!
21:56:08 <ahaller2> ack KJa
21:57:07 <Kjanowic> kerry: maybe make an example property
21:57:07 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
21:57:25 <Kjanowic> kerry: or at least split it into multiple comments
21:57:39 <Kjanowic> kj: I can add examples to all classes and properties
21:57:51 <Kjanowic> (for SOSA)
21:58:15 <Kjanowic> ahaller: per class and property we need to explain why the sosa comment differs from the ssn comment
21:58:19 <Kjanowic> yes, me
21:58:20 <SimonCox> ACTION: on SimonCox to split out examples from comments in SOSA-Core, look over all the comments
21:58:20 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
21:58:33 <Kjanowic> simon will do
21:58:34 <DanhLePhuoc> +1 for adding examples to classes and properties
21:58:43 <Kjanowic> q+
21:59:03 <SimonCox> ACTION: SimonCox to split out examples from comments in SOSA-Core, look over all the comments
21:59:03 <trackbot> Error finding 'SimonCox'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
21:59:20 <Kjanowic> present+ SimonCox
21:59:21 <ahaller2> ACTION: Simon Cox to split out examples from comments in SOSA-Core, look over all the comments
21:59:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Cox to split out examples from comments in sosa-core, look over all the comments [on Simon Cox - due 2016-11-22].
21:59:34 <Kjanowic> q+
21:59:38 <Kjanowic> no
21:59:44 <ahaller2> ack Kjanowic
22:00:35 <ahaller2> Kjanowic: We need to write more because it is another audience
22:01:02 <Kjanowic> ahaller: I agree. compare with ssn and explain why we need more or something different
22:01:53 <Kjanowic> thanks !
22:01:55 <ahaller2> bye
22:01:55 <Kjanowic> bye bye
22:02:17 <ahaller2> RRSAgent, make logs public
22:02:25 <ahaller2> type RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:19:37 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
23:52:17 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn