19:52:21 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 19:52:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-irc 19:52:23 RRSAgent, make logs world 19:52:23 Zakim has joined #sdw 19:52:25 Zakim, this will be SDW 19:52:25 ok, trackbot 19:52:26 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 19:52:26 Date: 22 February 2017 19:55:02 Present+ eparsons 19:55:09 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:55:14 mlefranc has joined #sdw 19:55:26 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201700222 19:55:37 Chair: eparsons 19:56:10 Regrets: Scott, Bill 19:56:58 kerry has joined #sdw 19:57:34 Regrets: Phila 19:58:09 present+ kerry 19:58:36 # what is webex meeting password ? 19:58:45 SimonCox has joined #sdw 19:58:46 Linda has joined #sdw 19:58:49 present+ mlefranc 19:59:08 The password is the sdw 19:59:21 KJanowic has joined #sdw 19:59:26 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 19:59:44 Hi 19:59:53 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 19:59:54 Evening everyone.. 20:00:02 Evening, Ed. 20:00:08 Can somebody remind me of the pw for the plenary meeting? 20:00:13 present+ kerry 20:00:23 for webex that is 20:00:27 present+ SimonCox 20:00:36 #sdw 20:01:11 present+ ahaller2 20:03:01 LarsG has joined #sdw 20:03:10 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 20:03:12 present+ 20:03:13 present+ 20:03:23 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 20:03:27 jtandy has joined #sdw 20:03:49 present+ jtandy 20:03:51 present+ Linda 20:04:07 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 20:04:08 present+ ByronCinNZ 20:04:36 MattPerry has joined #sdw 20:04:46 present+ MattPerry 20:04:49 roba has joined #sdw 20:05:09 scribe: Jeremy Tandy 20:05:15 scribenick: jtandy 20:05:19 Topic : Approve last week's minutes 20:05:22 present+ AndreaPerego 20:05:27 https://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-sdw-minutes 20:05:38 +1 20:05:38 +1 20:05:39 +1 20:05:41 +1 20:05:42 +1 20:05:42 +1 20:05:47 +1 20:05:53 RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes 20:05:59 present+ 20:06:00 Topic : Patent Call 20:06:02 +1 20:06:10 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 20:06:16 eparsons: calls out the patent stuff ... 20:06:31 ... we'll miss this! 20:06:42 Topic : Namespace for SOSA and SSN ontology 20:06:58 eparsons: main topic is from the SSN subgroup 20:07:05 ... invites Armin to introduce the comment 20:07:13 s/comment/subject/ 20:07:16 see the wiki page: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/NamespaceIssue 20:07:21 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#Modularization 20:07:28 laurent_oz has joined #sdw 20:07:37 ahaller2: biggest issue is how we integrate SOSA and SSN 20:07:51 LarsG_ has joined #sdw 20:07:51 ... SOSA is a small lightweight ontology 20:07:59 ... SSN imports this 20:08:07 ... both live in separate documents 20:08:10 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/NamespaceIssue#Three_options_in_a_nushell 20:08:19 ... question is whether we should have one or two namespaces 20:08:22 two URIs and two files 20:08:29 ... see wiki page likn 20:08:35 s/likn/link/ 20:08:49 ahaller2: example, see Platform 20:08:56 ... Platform is defined in the core 20:09:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 20:09:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 20:09:05 ... [but also in SSN] 20:09:27 ... currently we have set things up with two namespaces [didn't catch what these are] 20:09:38 http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/ for SSN and http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/ for SOSA 20:09:58 ahaller2: the two namespaces mean that we have, for example, sosa:Platform 20:10:17 ... there are options about how SSN might narrow this definition 20:10:37 ... the subject we discuss today is [...] 20:11:15 ahaller2: [...] if we have one unified namespace, we need to decide which namespace that is 20:11:24 ... options are summarised in the wiki page 20:11:39 ... mechanics of each option are described in the wiki page 20:11:51 discussion is on whether to have either one namespace for ssn and sosa or two namespaces, one for sosa and one for ssn. 20:12:09 q? 20:12:19 q+ 20:12:26 q+ 20:12:33 q+ 20:12:33 ahaller2: e.g. how each of the options resolves to find the right definition 20:12:45 eparsons: let's avoid jumping into the details 20:12:46 +1 to broader discussion first 20:12:54 ... let's focus on the broader discussion 20:12:57 ack next 20:13:00 ... going to the queue 20:13:18 mlefranc: tries to explain the main issues on a higher level 20:13:34 ... first of all, technically it's possible to have one or two namespace 20:13:50 ... the question was raised during F2F Lisbon; this issue is now resolve 20:13:56 s/resolve/resolved/ 20:14:21 mlefranc: the main issue for me is that some namespaces are defined in one namespace, some in the other 20:14:30 ... this is a burden for the user 20:14:37 ... [examples given] 20:14:52 ... this is the real problem for end users to learn what goes where 20:14:52 ack next 20:15:09 KJanowic: reflects on discussion 20:15:38 ... clarifies that this issue only occurs if you use the [extension mechanism?] 20:15:53 ... SOSA is a lightweight ontology 20:15:54 q? 20:16:05 ack next 20:16:10 ... SSN provides "more commitment" 20:16:24 ... how do we use these ontologies together 20:16:27 q+ 20:16:27 q+ 20:16:28 q+ 20:16:32 q+ 20:16:32 ack next 20:16:39 Linda: can we clarify what the benefits of each approach are? 20:16:52 ahaller2: using one or two namespaces 20:17:06 ... there is very little difference between the options 20:17:15 ... advantage of one namespace 20:17:36 q+ 20:18:15 [I think ahaller2 talks about terms only appearing in one namespace] 20:18:42 and this is a very important point 20:19:00 ahaller2: the only difference between one and two namespaces if we avoid reusing terms across the two namespaces is how the individual ontology files are set up 20:19:29 ack next 20:19:33 what we would be doing with one namespace is not what is the typical solution we see on the web and this is really important for a group like ours (and end users) 20:19:34 eparsons: can we focus on the perspective of the user here; the advantage of one or two namespaces? 20:19:41 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 20:19:51 AndreaPerego_ has joined #sdw 20:20:04 mlefranc: emphasises the problem of using two namespaces, a developer might not know what prefix to use 20:20:14 ... there are also other technical requirements 20:20:17 q? 20:20:21 ... 1/ the naming or branding 20:20:34 zakim, AndreaPerego_ is AndreaPerego 20:20:34 sorry, AndreaPerego_, I do not recognize a party named 'AndreaPerego_' 20:20:49 ... folks really like SOSA [?] because they like to talk about actuators 20:21:05 I have to disagree here 20:21:22 ... from the two sides perspective, we want to avoid duplicating the terms, e.g. sosa:Platform and ssn:Platform 20:21:22 q? 20:21:24 jtandy: and samples 20:21:29 ack next 20:21:41 KJanowic: again we mix many things 20:21:46 ... 1/ namespaces 20:22:05 ... 2/ whether we extend / sub-class sosa terms 20:22:13 ... agrees with ahaller2 20:22:20 ... this is what is done on the web 20:22:49 ... common practice is one namespace, one URI, one document 20:23:04 ack next 20:23:13 ... a standard is not the right place to conduct an experiment about publishing ontologies 20:23:37 but we have two ontologies, we agreed on that before (two URIs, two files) 20:23:44 kerry: the thing about having one namespace, is that we will be perceived to have one ontology 20:24:10 ... in practice, as a new user, you'll only see the simple terms from SOSA 20:24:27 think about prefix.cc , this will clearly make a difference 20:24:27 q+ 20:24:36 q+ 20:24:48 ... only if you are [looking at more detailed cases] will you end up resolving to the more [axiomatic?] definitions in SSN 20:24:58 ... what you see is usage dependent 20:25:07 q+ 20:25:17 sosa instances are not automatically ssn instances 20:25:28 ... only if you use the term from the more complex SSN would you [see any different behaviour] 20:25:46 ... this is a very elegant solution to publish modular ontologies 20:25:56 q+ 20:26:10 kerry: cites PROV-O which is modularised, but only as far as the documentation 20:26:39 ... the machinery used to publish PROV-O doesn't really support this 20:27:03 kerry: if we end up with sosa: Platform and ssn:Platform, this is a major failure 20:27:08 ack next 20:28:27 SimonCox: a couple of comments 20:28:43 1/ a little concerned about where kerry finished the discussion 20:28:56 zakim, close the queue 20:28:56 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed 20:28:59 ... sosa:Platform and ssn:Platform is unlikely 20:29:04 same here 20:29:15 SimonCox: 2/ we need to be clear about our user audience 20:29:27 ... earlier eparsons talked about linked data professionals 20:29:43 ... and mlefranc talked about confusion of using multiple namesapces 20:29:55 s/namesapces/namespaces/ 20:29:56 ... in the same REC 20:30:28 SimonCox: linked data professionals are evidently comfortable in using multiple namespaces 20:30:30 q? 20:30:38 ack next 20:30:48 q+ 20:31:06 SimonCox: our main audience for SOSA core is the web developer, much less concerned about linked data professionals 20:31:23 ahaller2: as a lightweight user, you'll only ever know about SOSA 20:31:38 ... also, we're not deciding [...] 20:32:05 ... if you have two namespaces, you don't know which to use 20:32:16 q? 20:32:20 ... because you don't know which one System is defined in 20:32:25 ack next 20:32:46 http://prefix.cc/ 20:32:48 ... we would need to define some mechanism to redirect folks to the right namespace even if the users choose the wrong one 20:33:09 KJanowic: look at prefix.cc for how people look up ontologies 20:33:15 ... this is the common way 20:33:18 ... one namesapce 20:33:29 s/namesapce/namespace/ 20:33:33 ack next 20:33:42 KJanowic: we need to keep to the common pattern 20:33:44 roba 20:33:49 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 20:33:58 roba: [tries to clarify] 20:34:06 ... there are two issues being conflated 20:34:07 two namespaces is the common way, one namespace is not. also prefix.cc would work with two but not with one namespace 20:34:23 q+ on prefix.cc 20:34:48 q+ 20:35:10 ... 1/ simple behaviour: content negotiation to get the OWL version if you want the detailed axioms 20:35:32 Some factors which may help to make a decision: ... will we there eventually be a schema.org extension "reproducing" SOSA? ... do we want only 1/2 of what we do to be ported into it or everything ... risk of confusion around the difference in modelling style: lightweight or axiomatic? ... maybe can be solved by providing JSON-LD versions (small snippets which matches Jano's requirement to be small) which is lightweight and an OWL/TTL version bein[CUT] 20:35:47 ack next 20:35:53 ... 2/ the other issue is [missed - sorry] 20:36:37 yes - its a cnstraint that SSN must restate SOSA semantics using OWL - not change meaning 20:36:52 mlefranc: suggests that we can't use content negotiation to serve different information [SOSA and SSN definitions are different] 20:36:56 Preseent+ ChrisLittle 20:37:09 ... responding to KJanowic, this pattern is not new 20:37:10 s/cnstraint/constraint 20:37:11 yes, in your research project but not widely. 20:37:13 q+ 20:37:17 ... example cited [missed] 20:37:23 q+ 20:37:41 ... last thing, I see the focus is on SOSA, and feel that the SSN is disregarded, 20:37:52 no, this is a misunderstanding. I am very commited to SSN. I am one of the developers. 20:37:56 Two issues: same terms, SOSA, but SSN provides formal axiomitastion = a different representation - and can therefoire use content-negotiation to get OWL (SSN) 20:37:58 q+ 20:38:04 q+ 20:38:07 ... the Charter says that we should result in something that is fully backward compatible 20:38:19 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:38:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 20:38:20 ... worries that SOSA and SSN will become disjoint products 20:38:29 the other issue is whther SSN ontology introduces new terms - and hence the discussion is really what namespace these should be in 20:38:36 eparsons: closes the queue [and attempts to summarise] 20:38:45 +1 20:38:46 +1 20:38:48 -1 20:38:50 +1 20:38:53 ... how many people think there should be just one namespace? 20:38:54 -1 20:38:58 0 20:38:59 +1 20:39:00 0 20:39:01 0 20:39:01 0 20:39:02 -1 20:39:03 -1 20:39:07 0 20:39:11 in all cases , SSN will be 100% consistent with SOSA 20:39:17 -1 20:39:18 [+1 = one namespace] 20:39:26 q+ 20:39:33 eparsons: hmmm, that's pretty much split 20:39:45 q+ 20:39:46 4x +1, 5x -1 20:39:51 ... queue is open again, but only to focus on this specific issue 20:39:59 q+ 20:40:00 zakim, reopen the queue 20:40:01 q+ 20:40:01 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 20:40:01 q+ 20:40:02 q? 20:40:03 q+ 20:40:08 if 0's are = -1 as Ed asked, then it is mostly against 20:40:13 ack next 20:40:15 q+ 20:40:34 SimonCox: what does zero mean? 20:40:37 DanhLePhuoc_ has joined #sdw 20:40:50 ... people have said "-1" 20:41:06 eparsons: zero and -1 are against "one namespace" 20:41:24 SimonCox: so that's 10 against, 4 for 20:41:25 My zero was abstain 20:41:37 q? 20:41:37 Mine as well - undecided. Sorry. 20:41:38 SOrry for barging in - seemed like a process problem there. 20:41:53 KJanowic: if you are a user of prefix.cc then the one namespace wouldn't work 20:41:53 ack next 20:42:02 ... we need to manage expectations here 20:42:08 roba: 2 issues 20:42:26 Disadvantage of two namespaces: not reaching out to new users for parts of SSN which are deemed too heavy 20:42:50 ... 1/ does SSN add axioms to terms defined in the SOSA namespace 20:42:51 kjanowic: two namespaces: expectation handling ---> this is what all others do. second: to the best of my understanding platforms like prefix.cc would not work well with one namespace 20:43:38 new terms go into ssn 20:43:47 ... 2/ are new terms defined for SSN included in the SOSA namespace 20:43:58 ... these are separate concerns 20:44:04 Disadvantage of two namespaces: what happens to sosa (and to ssn) if there is a schema.org extension reproducing SOSA-only, or SOSA + SSN? 20:44:07 Rob's 2 is the 'one namespace' solution right? 20:44:27 eparsons: let's look at having just one namespace instead of two 20:44:30 roba: I agree - that interpretation underpinned Kerry's assumption (which was reasonable, but not the only option) 20:44:37 ack next 20:44:43 ... from a layman's perspective, it appears to be simpler to have just one. 20:44:52 ... what is the advantage of two 20:45:17 q+ 20:45:33 two for what - addiung new terms or adding (consistent) axioms? 20:46:09 kerry: the only advantage for having two, is that if you use a term that is defined in the simple ontology, then you get that one 20:46:16 ack next 20:46:24 ... if you ask for one from the complex ontology, you get that 20:46:45 q+ 20:46:48 Advantage of having one namespace: will force the group to do more work to build a consistent result 20:46:56 ... issue is that if you ask for the wrong one (using the wrong namespace prefix) then you get the wrong definition 20:47:15 kerry: also, I've seen this work in prefix.cc 20:47:54 +1 to that 20:47:55 Can we vote first to use one namespace for terms covered in SOSA, adding more axioms in SSN that are consistent with SOSA text definitions - and then vote on what to do with new terms 20:48:34 mlefranc: [...] if we have terms in one namespace, there's no confusion, 20:48:39 zakim, close the queue 20:48:39 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed 20:48:40 q+ 20:49:11 q? 20:49:12 roba's proposal for a vote sounds reasonable to untangle the issue 20:49:16 documentation can point to SSN - if you search for platform in OWL representation you get SSN... 20:49:36 ... but if we have new terms only defined in SSN, [...] 20:49:38 ack next 20:49:53 KJanowic: we do have two ontologies 20:50:08 ... SOSA and SSN which imports SOSA 20:50:17 ... let's say we have one namespace 20:50:19 q+ 20:50:29 ack next 20:50:34 ... where would the DULCE alignment go, in the same namespace? 20:50:54 roba: submits a proposal ... 20:50:59 IM answer to Jano, I'd rather remove the DUL alignment than having two namespaces 20:51:23 I have the same assumption than you do Rob and Kerry 20:52:05 This would be the proposal ? Can we vote first to use one namespace for terms covered in SOSA, adding more axioms in SSN that are consistent with SOSA text definitions - and then vote on what to do with new terms 20:52:24 Keep in mind that sosa does not know about ssn (but ssn does import sosa) 20:52:29 +1 to RobA saying that we need to have a consistent set of definitions with different ways of consuming it. 20:52:32 roba: we can always use documentation to flag that more axioms are available for SOSA terms in the SSN ontology 20:53:05 Reminder: Prov-O precedent: has published a Data Model and an Ontology 20:53:07 q+ 20:53:14 +1 20:53:14 +1 20:53:16 +1 20:53:17 +1 20:53:17 +1 20:53:21 +1 20:53:21 +1 20:53:50 we are voting for " use one namespace for terms covered in SOSA, adding more axioms in SSN that are consistent with SOSA text definitions - and then vote on what to do with new terms" 20:54:08 zakim, reopen the queue 20:54:08 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 20:54:40 +1 20:54:42 +1 20:54:46 btw, this is not the case. we are always using the worng example :-) 20:54:57 0 20:55:02 q+ 20:55:05 +1 to what rob said! 20:55:08 +1 20:55:09 s/worng/wrong 20:55:32 roba: so, we're talking about SSN introducing axioms about terms defined in the SOSA namespace 20:55:33 ack next 20:55:48 present+ 20:56:02 roba: and that these axioms must be consistent with the textual definition in in SOSA 20:56:21 KJanowic: asks whether we changed context halfway through 20:56:22 yes, in the 8next* 20:56:28 q? 20:56:32 q+ 20:56:33 I don't think we changed. 20:56:36 s/8next*/*next* 20:56:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 20:56:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 20:56:42 roba: I don't think we changed here [but it's not the full story] 20:56:44 ack next 20:57:02 ... we just voted to introduce axioms in SSN to SOSA terms 20:57:18 ahaller2: hmmm, we might not get to the end here. 20:57:42 ... perhaps we can provide a clearer set of definition 20:57:47 jtandy, we did not vote on that. this is my point 20:57:48 q+ 20:58:03 ... I offer to do this if we don't get to the decision 20:58:06 yes, we have NOT voted on using one namespace 20:58:08 what about the namespace of the new terms ? 20:58:20 eparsons: I think we're clear on one namespace 20:58:50 'kicking the can down the road' ? 20:58:50 ahaller2: roba's vote precedes the decision about one or two namespaces 20:58:52 yes, to ahaller2 20:59:05 q+ 20:59:05 roba: we need to ask "one namespace for what" 20:59:27 ack next 20:59:33 ... one namespace for the terms + additional axioms for those terms 20:59:59 KJanowic: look at the votes, one was yes, the other was no 21:00:03 agreed KJanowic 21:00:19 roba: tried to break down the problem in discrete chunks 21:00:39 roba: we might have another namespace for new terms 21:00:49 roba: yes, absolutely 21:00:52 or not, would prefer not :-) 21:01:17 eparsons: more than happy to go around this again, still mostly lost, but desperate to help 21:01:26 +1 for jtandy! 21:01:30 roba: I was just explaining that we did not vote on "just using one namespace" (see above) 21:01:31 thanks a lot! 21:01:31 thanks !! 21:01:40 thanks a lot! 21:01:50 bye! 21:01:51 thanks guys 21:01:54 thanks 21:01:56 BYwe! 21:01:58 Cheers 21:02:00 Bye and thanks 21:02:01 bye everyone 21:02:06 bye! 21:02:07