Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference -- 06 Dec 2016

<ahaller2> scribe: kerry

<scribe> scribenick: kerry

<ahaller2> Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-sdwssn-minutes

<KJanowic> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<roba> +1

Approving last meeting's minutes

<ahaller2> Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

<joshlieberman> +!

[no response to patent call]

Remaining meeting schedule for 2016

plan for 2 more meetings: f2f 15 & 16 December

plus a meeting next week just before f2f and also 19 dec

<KJanowic> I cannot do the 19th Dec

26th is out of the question

armin: what do we do next week/

<KJanowic> Can't we break for the holidays after next week?

<roba> probably away next week

<phila> +1 to KJanowic

joshlieberman: contingent on agreement on all issues?

<KJanowic> Not really about progress but about family

<joshlieberman> That was wrt a 12/13 call, not all of December! I'll be out 12/19-1/4

armin: when is last day to publish fpwd before voting?

kerry: could be stretched to monday.... at a pinch

<KJanowic> I will be out 12/18--1/4

phila: hope is that at f2f it will be resolved to publish
... but will not come out until new year
... if resolved to publish at f2f will be published first week of Jan
... for review Mponday is good enough

armin: we should aim to have it ready by Monday

<ahaller2> kerry: it is ok to have a lot of issues in the WD

<phila> kerry speaks truth wrt issues flagged in the doc- that's fine and better than not publishing

joshlieberman: I meant we could avoid a meeting next week if all issues are resolved

armin: ... a lot of people are away on 19th?

<joshlieberman> -1

<phila> 0

<roba> -0

<KJanowic> -1

armin: are you avail on 19th?

<ClausStadler> probably -1

<ahaller2> january 2nd?

RESOLUTION: cancel ssn meeting on 19th December

<roba> +1

-1

<KJanowic> -1

<ClausStadler> -1

<joshlieberman> 0

<ahaller2> -1

<ahaller2> january 9th

<phila> it's Tue 3rd for most of us

<ClausStadler> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<roba> +0

armin: xmas break will be... come back 9th Jan (10th Jan for most)

Progress Report on current WD

phila: points out importance of approving pub at f2f

first meeting after Xmas will be 10th Jan

RESOLUTION: first meeting in new year will be 10th Jan

<ahaller2> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

armin: raul analysed usage of ssn but did not find a lot of datasets, he did find some ontologies
... encourage all to add to this
... if you know of any others please add to this table
... you can see the list of ontolgies here

<KJanowic> Our trajectory ontology is also an implementation in that it uses SSN. I can add it to the list.

<scribe> ACTION: raul to be asked to put out a general call for exiustimg implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Be asked to put out a general call for exiustimg implementations [on Raúl García Castro - due 2016-12-13].

<ClausStadler_> A collegue of mine is working on a project where they analyse log and possibly sensor data from printing machines and I suggested to have a look at SSN, but I am not sure on when there will be an update of whether SSN is applicable to it and whether they would model the data according to it, as they made some ad-hoc implementation a while ago

armin: lots of work with specgen -- had some problems, not entirely solved, output is now consistent but not complete
... so we will have the new sosa in t he WD and sosa works ok with specgen
... specgen does produce clean validated html so it is better that way
... tried also to update the figure but not in doc yet

kerry: what about dul alignment?

armin: we can work together on that
... [summarises for simon who just joined]
... KJanowic did you do anything for the intro/

KJanowic: [missed]

armin: can you do for monday next week?

KJanowic: yes

armin: that is it for update

armin: new ssn and new sos should be in doc today

<ahaller2> kerry: posted to the mailing list the mapping between old ssn and new ssn, including equivalence relations

simon: mapping table have responded to Kerry's comments and added the properties

Annotations in mapping table https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

<SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

simon: could also be used for the allignments

armin: this table is the mapping between sosa and ssn --- will not get in doc yet -- will be too ambitious to get sosa/ssn alignment done

<KJanowic> the mapping table is not an alignment, it is a comparison of textual definitions

armin: we can work to resolved the differences in here and eventually that will be reflected in ontology
... but cannot see how we can get this in the next draft
... simon and i have both started on this but I don't expect to get it ready

simon: I don't have time either

armin: yes mapping table will be a resource for that

simon: kerry picked some nits on the mapping to ssn and I think have clarified it now
... also added the properties which is essentially the same...
... armin had talked about tracing and feature of interst clss but this may be confusing the propery and classes of the same name
... textual material from rdfs comments is all there, alos have o&mlite and ogc uml model

armin: thanks simon
... pls have a loook at that table of annotations and make comments
... also have split into multiple comments to pull out examples as separate comments

scribe: maybe have a separate property for examples but this is good for now ... pls havea look!

KJanowic: why have multiple comments?

SimonCox: the question in my mind is do we need to have a special property for the examples and other things? or drop the examples?
... it was pointed that there was a mixture and it could be cleaner than all embedded withing a single text field
... so I have split them up but maybe they do not all belong there

KJanowic: from a tool perspective if we use a tool which comment should they use?
... sequence is not important
... so tools may show some arbitrary comment first, maybe not the right one
... so examples are so much more important
... multiple comments may backfire

<ClausStadler_> -1 to multiple comments for the reason KJanowic mentioned

SimonCox: we could use skos or dc:description properties

<KJanowic> +1 to what simon just said

<ahaller2> +1

SimonCox: editorial decision

armin: what does phila recommend?

<ClausStadler_> +1 to using alternative modeling of comments (possibly annotating cases of multiple comments such that it is possible to single each out)

phila: I could look bu just label, isDefinedBy, comment that I know

<SimonCox> could use skos:definition dc:description skos:note skos:scopeNote etc for various purposes, but no clear convention

<KJanowic> as you wish sounds great

<KJanowic> +1 to kerry's 'make your own convention'

<ahaller2> kerry: want to see them separated, but use a different property for the example

<KJanowic> lets avoid multiple comment blocks as we have no control over their order, i.e., priority

sosa:Platform vs. ssn:Platform, why is it different? ISSUE 88

armin: we will do this -- find an annotation propoprty to use

<KJanowic> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88

<ahaller2> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88

RESOLUTION: use some appropriate new annotation properties to record different kinds of comments in the ontology

issue-88?

<trackbot> issue-88 -- Why is a sosa-core platofrm completely different to an ssn:platform? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88

<KJanowic> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn#Platform

<ahaller2> kerry: in SOSA the Platform is closer to a Device, Platform in SSN is widely used, for example in Sensor-ML

<KJanowic> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/sdw/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl

<ahaller2> or use the mapping table: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

<ahaller2> KJanowic: Platform in SOSA is essentially the same as in SSN, it includes Actuation and Humans

<KJanowic> I have to strongly disagree here for all the arguments I made

<KJanowic> subclass

<KJanowic> Both capture the same semantics but the SOSA text is more explicit and also allows for virtual sensors to be mounted

<KJanowic> +1 to simon

<KJanowic> why not subclassing?

<KJanowic> there is just the hostedby relation, noting more. and this is just like old ssn:attachedSystem

<joshlieberman> Sticking point may be "virtual platform"

<KJanowic> Very happy to do that

armin: suggests an example sould be helpful showing how sensors, devices and platforms interact

KJanowic: properties; attached system and (sometinh) are closely realted, tried to get actuators and sensing devices in there and be explicit about humans etc so [missed] but will provide textual summary of this

armin: pls include an example and send to list

joshlieberman:

<KJanowic> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/documentation_examples/sosa-core_examples.ttl

joshlieberman: irc not working for me
... don't have vocabs in front of me --- would be good to have sensorml in mapping table of vocabulary terms

<KJanowic> platforms carry sensors but platforms do not sense
...sosa: platfom defintion is not clearly distinguished from sosa:sensor
... in SensorML the platform carries the geometry for location etc of sensors

<SimonCox> joshlieberman: could you add the SensorML column?
...sosa: not clear what a platform is other than a collection of sensors in sosa
... that might result in the idea of virtual platform not being so helpful
... "featureness" that we need may be less appropriate for a computer system

KJanowic: def of platform in sosa is the thing on which sensors are mounted... but platforms do not sense and gereate observations

<joshlieberman> It would be more useful to have a positive distinction, not just a negative one.

KJanowic: a physical platform with multiple sensors is included

<ClausStadler> +q

KJanowic: we need to make sure the rest of the ontology [missed] we can simply cut the last sentence if we do not want virtual platforms

<KJanowic> +1 to Claus' example

ClausStadler: agree with KJanowic e.g simulation with 3d models or a car
... think that it could be a virtual entity

<KJanowic> Yes, I will describe this in detail.

armin: confusion that we do not have a device in sosa --- krs pls work on this explanation over the next week.
... we need wd for call next week

<ClausStadler> I think the main purpose of the platform should be to allow logical grouping of sensors / actuators

armin: thks!

bye!

<KJanowic> thanks, for the productive telcon. bye bye

<joshlieberman> bye

<SimonCox> bye

bye!

<ahaller2> s/confustion/confusion

- DRAFT -

Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference

06 Dec 2016

Attendees

Contents

Approving last meeting's minutes

Remaining meeting schedule for 2016

Progress Report on current WD

Annotations in mapping table https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

sosa:Platform vs. ssn:Platform, why is it different? ISSUE 88

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output