19:56:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
19:56:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-sdwssn-irc
19:56:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:56:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwssn
19:56:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:56:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
19:56:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:56:43 <trackbot> Date: 09 May 2017
19:57:19 <tidoust> tidoust has joined #sdwssn
20:00:56 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
20:02:34 <KJanowic> Hi all
20:02:49 <KJanowic> @tidoust: where do I enter the host key for webex?
20:03:17 <tidoust> Ooops, sorry, I thought it was already open
20:04:15 <mlefranc> mlefranc has joined #sdwssn
20:04:52 <RaulGarciaCastro> RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
20:04:56 <mlefranc> present+
20:06:39 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:06:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
20:06:44 <RaulGarciaCastro> present+ RaulGarciaCastro
20:07:00 <KJanowic> present+
20:07:10 <tidoust> Chair: KJanowic
20:07:13 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
20:07:16 <tidoust> present+ Francois
20:07:27 <RaulGarciaCastro> I canç
20:07:29 <KJanowic> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170509
20:07:42 <RaulGarciaCastro> s/canç/can
20:07:43 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
20:07:53 <tidoust> Topic: Approving last minutes
20:08:00 <tidoust> -> http://www.w3.org/2017/05/02-sdwssn-minutes Last SSN minutes
20:08:09 <mlefranc> +1
20:08:10 <KJanowic> +1
20:08:12 <SimonCox> +1
20:08:12 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:08:13 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
20:08:25 <tidoust> scribenick: tidoust
20:08:33 <KJanowic> Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:09:07 <tidoust> i/Patent Call/Topic: Patent Call/
20:09:21 <KJanowic> Agenda: Implementation of proposal for alignment as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Events_and_Situations for ssn:Observation
20:09:40 <tidoust> s/Agenda:/Topic:
20:10:01 <tidoust> KJanowic: Nothing more to report on this particular case compared to last time. I would propose to deal with more pressing issues first
20:10:12 <KJanowic> Agenda: Progress on Action 350 to incorporate examples in ED for each modular section of the SSN ontology
20:10:22 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:10:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
20:10:23 <KJanowic> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/350
20:10:57 <tidoust> Maxime: First Pull Request that I created and then closed after last week's meeting.
20:11:29 <tidoust> s/Agenda:/Topic:/
20:11:58 <tidoust> Maxime: [goes through proposal]. The suggestion that we had last week was to merge the examples at the beginning of each section
20:12:19 <tidoust> ... I started to do that but I don't think it's the right place for some of the examples, e.g. for stimulus
20:12:38 <tidoust> ... I don't think having an example about stimulus is appropriate when we haven't introduced observation yet.
20:13:08 <tidoust> ... Also, the examples that I write consider that an instance of a property is deeply attached to a feature of interest.
20:13:25 <tidoust> ... I understand that some people disagree. I'd like to discuss that issue beforehand.
20:14:02 <tidoust> KJanowic: I think we should still continue to work on examples. If we wait until everyone agrees, then we'll likely run out of time.
20:14:06 <mlefranc> first pull request with examples: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/730
20:14:10 <tidoust> ... We can adjust examples afterwards.
20:14:35 <tidoust> ... There are also preliminary examples for older versions of SSN. Of course we changed the names, but adjusting them should be easy.
20:15:04 <tidoust> ... How atomic should these examples be? Clearly you need to combine concepts. There will be no perfect solution.
20:15:34 <tidoust> ... You can't talk about sampling without talking about feature of interest. We may re-shuffle section 4 so that things make more sense.
20:15:38 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
20:15:39 <SimonCox> q+
20:15:49 <KJanowic> ack DanhLePhuoc
20:15:51 <tidoust> ack DanhLePhuoc
20:16:22 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: If we put examples on each property, it feels kind of redundant. Even in simple use cases you don't describe one simple thing.
20:16:48 <tidoust> ... I think it's rather grouping that makes sense
20:16:54 <KJanowic> Ack SimonCox
20:17:38 <KJanowic> Examples as of now: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/documentation_examples/sosa-core_examples.ttl
20:17:40 <tidoust> SimonCox: I haven't been looking in details into examples, I wonder if it's possible to use a URI without giving a full explanation of what that URI denotes.
20:17:50 <tidoust> ... And then expand the example further down.
20:18:12 <tidoust> KJanowic: Raul, any thought on this?
20:18:30 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: From my perspective, all approaches are good. Devil is in the details.
20:19:01 <tidoust> KJanowic: Just to summarize, it looks like doing step by step is rather confusing. One way would be to move examples towards the end.
20:19:20 <tidoust> ... In complement to that, we may use URIs that we expand later on.
20:19:45 <tidoust> mlefranc: I think the problems and the solutions might become more obvious when I will have delivered the first version of the total set of examples.
20:20:08 <KJanowic> q+
20:20:14 <tidoust> ... Maybe we'll have a last phase of re-shuffling the examples.
20:20:38 <tidoust> ... Same for the URI, usually I use example.org/data/something, but sometimes I talk about actual examples.
20:20:53 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
20:20:56 <tidoust> ... In that case, when the URI is dereferenceable, I used it.
20:20:59 <KJanowic> ack DanhLePhuoc
20:21:48 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: I didn't have time to go over the version that includes the examples. The current approach is to put examples on every class and property?
20:22:07 <tidoust> mlefranc: Yes, the current pull request puts examples whereever we introduce a new concept
20:22:17 <KJanowic> Can you post the link to the request?
20:22:18 <tidoust> ... I'm trying to merge examples near the top of section.
20:23:18 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: I propose to group examples so that it looks like a small piece that fits together in a consistent way.
20:23:25 <mlefranc> q+
20:24:11 <KJanowic> Ack Kjanowic
20:24:21 <tidoust> ... People look at certain subsets of class and want to see something relevant to them.
20:24:50 <tidoust> KJanowic: How are we going to handle the fact that some of these examples will be SOSA only and some examples will be SSN only.
20:25:04 <tidoust> ... We should avoid examples that mix them, and we should avoid duplicate examples.
20:25:29 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
20:25:39 <tidoust> ... SOSA is made for a different target audience, and we need to make sure that these examples stand out.
20:26:05 <tidoust> ... Do we need separate SOSA and SSN examples?
20:26:16 <KJanowic> Ack mlefranc
20:26:27 <tidoust> ... If SOSA examples contain SSN parts, would that do a favor to SOSA readers?
20:27:02 <tidoust> mlefranc: I'm looking for a way for ReSpec to handle multiple examples at once. We may hide examples that we don't want to show.
20:27:34 <tidoust> ... We could hide the SOSA example when we want the SSN example to appear for instance.
20:27:44 <tidoust> ... Not sure how example numbering would work in that case.
20:28:08 <KJanowic> Ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:28:17 <tidoust> ... It could be very interesting to have the examples both in Turtle format and as a graph that is similar to the one that describes the concepts
20:28:26 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: That's a good idea.
20:28:40 <KJanowic> q+
20:28:56 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: I also thing that a figure is worth a thousand words and I volunteer.
20:29:22 <tidoust> ... I agree that we need examples focused on the SOSA audience and complete them with examples focused on the SSN audience.
20:29:35 <KJanowic> Both, sosa and ssn examples
20:29:45 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
20:29:45 <tidoust> ... We need to make them fit together to show SOSA readers how they could extend them with SSN terms.
20:30:59 <tidoust> SimonCox: I share your concern KJanowic that the document would become cluttered.
20:31:02 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+ to say why not to put the examples at the end of the document?
20:31:12 <tidoust> ... Doing it in the specification part, we can get away with that.
20:31:22 <tidoust> ... Interleaving more material, it worries me certainly.
20:31:38 <KJanowic> ...and link to e xamples
20:31:42 <KJanowic> Ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:31:42 <Zakim> RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say why not to put the examples at the end of the document?
20:31:43 <tidoust> ... I wonder whether we could rather examples in a completely different section rathen than having them in line.
20:31:49 <tidoust> s/rathen/rather
20:32:02 <KJanowic> q+
20:32:22 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: I agree with this. When I read the specification, I don't know anything. I want to see examples. When I know the specification, I want to see things in details.
20:32:29 <tidoust> ... These have two separate use cases.
20:32:40 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
20:33:40 <tidoust> KJanowic: Once you are a more frequent user of SSN, you'll only go there for definition, and you won't want to be bothered by examples.
20:33:55 <tidoust> ... So I favour putting examples in a separate section.
20:34:22 <mlefranc> q+
20:34:26 <tidoust> ... Now I do not think that we should go back to a document that separates SOSA and SSN.
20:34:38 <tidoust> ... now that we have them presented in combination.
20:35:00 <KJanowic> Ack mlefranc
20:35:07 <tidoust> ... We should just try something and see whether that works.
20:35:25 <KJanowic> Btw, the button still jumps around for me
20:35:25 <tidoust> mlefranc: If you have a button that allows you to hide anything that is related to SSN, then it's OK.
20:35:27 <RaulGarciaCastro> If we separate SOSA and SSN in the specification it will be more confusing
20:36:07 <KJanowic> q
20:36:07 <KJanowic> +
20:36:09 <KJanowic> q+
20:36:14 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
20:36:18 <tidoust> ... There is the question of the timeline. If we accept that examples fall at the beginning of each section with a hide/show button, then everything falls in place for me.
20:36:50 <tidoust> KJanowic: I may a little old school here. If someone wants to print out the document, can it print only the SSN part? That would be difficult.
20:37:09 <RaulGarciaCastro> You share the screen, no problem :)
20:37:14 <tidoust> ... Also, if people have different settings, it makes referencing sections online more difficult
20:37:53 <RaulGarciaCastro> q+
20:37:57 <tidoust> ... These are specification. Readability and ease of navigation are the most crucial parts.
20:38:07 <KJanowic> Ack RaulGarciaCastro
20:38:58 <tidoust> mlefranc: Try to also think in terms of SSN users sometimes. If we move all the SOSA terms in a separate section, then imagine how a user interested in both SOSA/SSN will understand the spec.
20:39:14 <tidoust> KJanowic: That's a good point. But you can duplicate parts in that case.
20:39:35 <tidoust> ... When I want to learn, I look at the OWL file in any case.
20:39:54 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: If we separate SOSA with a nice SOSA part, the SSN part would indeed be quite a mess.
20:39:56 <KJanowic> q+
20:40:15 <tidoust> ... It will be very difficult to understand what goes where and how things relate. I'm not in favor of that.
20:40:28 <tidoust> ... I'm even thinking about a primer.
20:40:35 <tidoust> ... This is something we can do with examples.
20:40:54 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
20:40:58 <tidoust> ... What we have now is a good compromise
20:41:24 <tidoust> KJanowic: Would it make sense to have a figure over figure 3 that explains what SOSA only is?
20:41:43 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: Yes, but that's something we can do. We can add a new figure. I'm happy to do that.
20:41:48 <KJanowic> ACTION RaulGarciaCastro: Sosa only figure
20:41:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-354 - Sosa only figure [on Raúl García Castro - due 2017-05-16].
20:42:36 <tidoust> Simon: I support the view that there's a significant set of users that will be jumped straight to examples, but then it can be the purpose of a Primer document.
20:42:47 <tidoust> s/be jumped/jump
20:43:19 <tidoust> KJanowic: I'm not super eager to vote in the absence of Armin.
20:43:40 <tidoust> mlefranc: I agree with the need to have SOSA only examples and I will duplicate examples where it makes sense.
20:43:52 <tidoust> ... To have SSN examples that extend SOSA examples.
20:43:52 <KJanowic> ACTION mlefranc: make SOSA and SSN examaples
20:43:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Make sosa and ssn examaples [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-05-16].
20:44:19 <KJanowic> Progress on related Action 348 to inquire the need for implementation evidence for, e.g. ssn:Stimulus
20:44:26 <KJanowic> next agenda item: Progress on related Action 348 to inquire the need for implementation evidence for, e.g. ssn:Stimulus
20:45:12 <tidoust> i/Progress on related/Topic: Progress on related Action 348 to inquire the need for implementation evidence for, e.g. ssn:Stimulus
20:45:43 <tidoust> KJanowic: [question for Francois about classes that won't be populated]
20:46:21 <KJanowic> tidoust: should be fine
20:47:18 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
20:47:47 <KJanowic> Ack DanhLePhuoc
20:48:01 <tidoust> KJanowic: The rationale to included some classes is from an ontology modelling perspective
20:48:31 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: There are classes that people do not instantiate but that will be used in the entailment regime
20:48:32 <KJanowic> I agree, we discussed this before and it is okay
20:48:38 <KJanowic> q+
20:48:42 <tidoust> ... In the SPARQL query, this will be used.
20:49:19 <tidoust> ... I wonder if the implementation evidence needs to only address abstract classes
20:49:26 <tidoust> ack KJanowic
20:50:06 <tidoust> KJanowic: The implementation evidence is for terms in HTTP where not using them does not make any sense
20:50:53 <KJanowic> for the note above: implementation evidence natural for something like tags in html, not necessarily axioms
20:51:23 <tidoust> Francois: Danh's explanation makes sense to me. Entailment regime is a very good rationale to define abstract classes.
20:52:00 <tidoust> ... No need to find implementation evidence in terms of instantiation if it does not make sense.
20:52:32 <tidoust> KJanowic: There should be an action for somebody who list classes and properties for which we don't expect instantiation.
20:52:51 <tidoust> mlefranc: Plus there are classes and properties that are entangled.
20:53:13 <KJanowic> q+
20:53:25 <tidoust> ... Whenever you have an observation, then you have a stimulus. If you have implementation evidence for observation, then you can that you implementation evidence for stimulus.
20:53:39 <tidoust> ... Only a few terms that are not related such as accuracy and precision.
20:53:51 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
20:54:48 <mlefranc> * true :-)
20:54:48 <tidoust> KJanowic: The presence of domain and range specifications would immediately mean that you do not need implementation evidence for the parent class.
20:55:05 <tidoust> ... I would like to follow these rules.
20:56:09 <tidoust> ... For now, I would just record an action that we create a list of classes and properties where we don't expect instantiations.
20:56:21 <tidoust> ... Any volunteer?
20:57:12 <tidoust> SimonCox: I'm interested in this but I feel I have less experience in the SSN side. There's a bit of homework required, here.
20:57:27 <tidoust> KJanowic: Absolutely, you'd have to understand what the axioms trigger.
20:57:36 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: I can try and you can comment on that
20:57:42 <KJanowic> ACTION DanhLePhuoc: Create a lit of axioms that do not need implementation evidence
20:57:42 <trackbot> Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:58:00 <tidoust> ACTION Danh to Create a lit of axioms that do not need implementation evidence
20:58:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Create a lit of axioms that do not need implementation evidence [on Danh Le Phuoc - due 2017-05-16].
20:58:06 <KJanowic> ACTION DanhLePhuoc:  Create a lit of axioms that do not need implementation evidence
20:58:06 <trackbot> Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:58:55 <KJanowic> next item on agenda: Decision on Pull request https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/792 for moving ssn:hasProperty and ssn:isPropertyOf to SOSA
20:59:22 <tidoust> KJanowic: I wonder whether we should rather discuss features at risk
20:59:46 <KJanowic> next would be: Progress on Action 346 to mark features at risk
20:59:53 <tidoust> ... I just fear that if we discuss this now, we'll take most of the remaining hour and Armin would still need to be in the conversation.
21:00:08 <tidoust> ... I suggest to talk about features at risk first.
21:00:23 <tidoust> Topic: Progress on Action 346 to mark features at risk
21:00:29 <tidoust> ACTION-346?
21:00:29 <trackbot> ACTION-346 -- Armin Haller to Mark classes/properties as at risk in the ed -- due 2017-05-09 -- OPEN
21:00:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/346
21:00:33 <KJanowic> next item: Progress on Action 346 to mark features at risk
21:00:49 <KJanowic> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/850
21:00:57 <sdwssn> sdwssn has joined #sdwssn
21:01:29 <tidoust> KJanowic: Please look at this discussion
21:01:57 <tidoust> ... Simon, you brought up this idea of moving this in the horizontal module part
21:03:06 <KJanowic> I strongly agree
21:03:14 <tidoust> Simon: Yes, I think the whole approach to modularization is motivated by a few things. You can say that importing an ontology does not mean that you have to use all the terms it defines.
21:03:39 <tidoust> ... All the classes that seemed to be discussed as at risk were related to detailed descriptions of sensors
21:03:48 <tidoust> ... I suggest to package them separately
21:04:02 <KJanowic> nbasically do what we did with Sample Relations Module
21:04:08 <mlefranc> q+
21:04:26 <sdwssn> thats exactly what i was proposing in the Option 8 modularity.... for those reasons
21:04:26 <tidoust> ... in a different graph. SOSA at the core. Then a basic SSN with axiomization but similar scope.
21:04:49 <tidoust> ... Then a separate graph for horizontal extensions as was proposed by KJanowic a year ago.
21:05:13 <KJanowic> Yes, and that is a very important point (the readability)
21:05:31 <KJanowic> q+
21:05:36 <KJanowic> Ack KJanowic
21:05:39 <DanhLePhuoc_> DanhLePhuoc_ has joined #sdwssn
21:05:42 <tidoust> ... In terms of document, it means we could move concepts to a different part, normative initially and that we could flip to informative prose if we cannot find implementation evidence.
21:05:46 <sdwssn> hmm - sleepy eyes - manged to miss my nick roba - can i fix this
21:06:37 <RaulGarciaCastro> Some of those terms had implementation evidence in the old SSN: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
21:06:40 <tidoust> KJanowic: The risk is not being able to move forward because of lack of evidence.
21:06:46 <KJanowic> Ack mlefranc
21:07:06 <tidoust> mlefranc: I also back you on moving some of the properties and classes that we feel are at risk in a separate module.
21:07:38 <KJanowic> I agree
21:07:57 <tidoust> ... I just saw the pull request, had missed that one. I think other classes could be moved to a separate section.
21:08:03 <KJanowic> No, then this would no longer be needed, that is the benefit
21:08:10 <KJanowic> yes!
21:08:11 <tidoust> ... My understanding of feature at risk is that we would need to remove them altogether.
21:08:15 <KJanowic> q+
21:08:32 <tidoust> ... Switching them to informative would be a clever way to keep them around.
21:08:53 <tidoust> ... We already have two namespaces, now there would be 3, I'm not fan.
21:09:07 <KJanowic> "The namespace for Sample relationships terms is http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/sampling/"
21:09:24 <tidoust> ... If we put these features in a non-normative section already, then we don't need to have them as features at risk.
21:10:14 <tidoust> KJanowic: This is a really big issue. This is not only about restructuring. Putting features informative would avoid having to mark them at risk altogether.
21:10:38 <tidoust> RaulGarciaCastro: For me, this is a significant change right now.
21:10:55 <tidoust> KJanowic: It's only about moving parts of the document. It won't change axioms.
21:11:09 <tidoust> q+
21:11:14 <DanhLePhuoc_> q+
21:11:17 <roba> q+
21:11:25 <KJanowic> Ack tidoust
21:11:48 <KJanowic> q+
21:12:51 <tidoust> Francois: Wondering about normative vs. informative meaning here
21:13:25 <KJanowic> Ack DanhLePhuoc
21:13:38 <tidoust> KJanowic: It's more thinking in terms of a family of terms that we carry over from the old SSN.
21:14:02 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: I share Raul's concern about that being a major change.
21:16:13 <tidoust> Francois: Moving these classes to a horizontal module is fine. However, I note marking that module as informative means you basically drop that module from the ontology.
21:16:16 <KJanowic> Ack roba
21:18:06 <tidoust> roba: My concern is that this relationship between factories and namespaces still seems confusing. I would like to see options for extensions that make it easy to do so. Provide a useful pattern.
21:18:12 <KJanowic> q?
21:18:59 <tidoust> q+
21:20:01 <mlefranc> q+
21:20:07 <roba> q+
21:20:12 <KJanowic> ack mlefranc
21:20:33 <tidoust> Francois: Why don't you drop these terms altogether right away? They seem to come from the past without too much rationale.
21:20:41 <KJanowic> I agree with Maxime
21:20:57 <KJanowic> Ack roba
21:20:58 <tidoust> mlefranc: If we find evidence, then these terms would be great to have.
21:21:11 <tidoust> ... There are other people on top of us.
21:21:36 <SimonCox> q+
21:21:39 <tidoust> Simon: I think it's the wrong container. There should be one REC, and a series of NOTE maybe.
21:22:02 <tidoust> ... We can focus on SOSA core and publish a note for the rest of the stuff.
21:22:09 <KJanowic> PROPOSAL: Drop conditions, capabilities, and ranges entirely from new SSN.
21:22:23 <RaulGarciaCastro> -1
21:22:23 <KJanowic> -1
21:22:29 <mlefranc> -1
21:22:31 <DanhLePhuoc_> -1
21:22:40 <SimonCox> -1
21:22:40 <tidoust> KJanowic: I'm going to propose that we vote on different options, starting with the most provocative one.
21:22:43 <roba> -1
21:23:15 <KJanowic> PROPOSAL: Move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them non-normative.
21:23:16 <roba> ("the new SSN" is still amorphous - reading it as SOSA + SSN)
21:23:20 <tidoust> KJanowic: I'll take this as a "no".
21:23:37 <mlefranc> +1
21:23:40 <KJanowic> 0
21:23:41 <RaulGarciaCastro> 0
21:23:45 <roba> 0
21:23:52 <SimonCox> +1
21:24:04 <DanhLePhuoc_> 0
21:24:09 <KJanowic> PROPOSAL: Move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them normative.
21:24:28 <KJanowic> 0
21:24:37 <SimonCox> -1
21:24:38 <mlefranc> +1 "and at risk"
21:24:41 <RaulGarciaCastro> 0
21:24:41 <DanhLePhuoc_> 0
21:24:49 <roba> +1 (but revert to previous if no implementation)
21:25:04 <KJanowic> PROPOSAL: Do not change anything and mark as at risk
21:25:12 <SimonCox> -1
21:25:20 <KJanowic> -1
21:25:20 <mlefranc> 0
21:25:24 <roba> 0
21:25:25 <RaulGarciaCastro> 0
21:25:31 <DanhLePhuoc_> 0
21:26:16 <SimonCox> Could we ask the simple question 'Move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module' first?
21:27:20 <mlefranc> +1
21:27:32 <KJanowic> PROPOSAL: Move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them as normative (and at risk). If no implementation evidence found, mark section as non-normative.
21:27:38 <mlefranc> +1
21:27:45 <SimonCox> +1
21:27:46 <KJanowic> +1
21:27:47 <roba> +1
21:27:55 <DanhLePhuoc_> +1
21:27:57 <RaulGarciaCastro> +1
21:28:06 <SimonCox> Good ooutcome
21:28:11 <KJanowic> RESOLUTION: Move conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them as normative (and at risk). If no implementation evidence found, mark section as non-normative.
21:29:07 <tidoust> KJanowic: Excellent. This needs an action. Any volunteer?
21:29:16 <tidoust> mlefranc: I can do that. Not before next Monday though
21:29:26 <KJanowic> ACTION mlefranc : implement resolution "Move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them as normative. If no implementation evidence found, mark section as non-normative."
21:29:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - : implement resolution "move  conditions, capabilities, and ranges to a horizontal module and make them as normative. if no implementation evidence found, mark section as non-normative." [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-05-16].
21:29:46 <KJanowic> Next on the agenda: Strategies to make the WD more readable and how to coordinate the collection of implementation evidence
21:30:13 <tidoust> Topic: Strategies to make the WD more readable and how to coordinate the collection of implementation evidence
21:30:58 <tidoust> KJanowic: We haven't got a lot of comments so far.
21:31:15 <tidoust> ... Right now, we don't have a lot of feedback. We sent it to a lot of people.
21:31:27 <tidoust> ... It may turn into a thing that we need to address.
21:31:32 <mlefranc> q+
21:31:39 <KJanowic> ack KJanowic
21:31:41 <tidoust> ... Any idea of a better way to solicit feedback.
21:31:45 <KJanowic> ack tidoust
21:31:49 <KJanowic> ack SimonCox
21:32:08 <SimonCox> q-
21:32:17 <KJanowic> Ack mlefranc
21:32:29 <KJanowic> Very good idea!
21:32:43 <KJanowic> Directly target authors of previous SSN workshops
21:32:50 <tidoust> mlefranc: I was just wondering. There have been a few conferences about SSN. Some emails to paper authors could be a good idea
21:33:14 <tidoust> KJanowic: But then we risk getting statu quo feedback.
21:33:22 <KJanowic> q?
21:33:25 <tidoust> q+
21:33:43 <KJanowic> Ack tidoust
21:33:56 <KJanowic> tidoust: check abck again with WoT group
21:34:59 <RaulGarciaCastro> tidoust: I wrote this comparison in the wiki: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Comparison_between_SSN_and_WoT_TD
21:35:41 <KJanowic> q?
21:35:43 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: Involved in the Wot WG on Thing Description discussions. They haven't looked very closely at SSN and how it could be integrated but are aware of it.
21:35:44 <RaulGarciaCastro> s/abck/back
21:36:03 <tidoust> Francois: OK, what I wanted to know was that there are people who look at both. That's good.
21:36:06 <mlefranc> q+
21:36:14 <KJanowic> ack mlefranc
21:36:18 <KJanowic> Agreed!
21:36:24 <tidoust> mlefranc: Having examples should help us to get reviews.
21:36:31 <tidoust> ... It will enhance readability of the document.
21:36:44 <tidoust> ... As soon as we have accepted the examples, then we're good.
21:37:05 <tidoust> KJanowic: I agree. Let's continue with the example despite the fact that we could have to change what property means.
21:37:14 <mlefranc> * as we have accepted what a ssn:Property is
21:37:59 <tidoust> KJanowic: I can collect implementation evidence for social sensing. And I can ask people from Siemens to help.
21:38:01 <SimonCox> I can provide implementation evidence for sampling (and also sampling relations!)
21:38:12 <tidoust> ... Anyone else who can contribute implementation evidence?
21:38:18 <tidoust> ... For the actuation part?
21:38:20 <SimonCox> ... from Geoscience Australia (2M samples)
21:39:04 <tidoust> mlefranc: If it is some data about my building and a few actuators done by my students, that's probably not enough in terms of dataset size.
21:39:14 <roba> i dont htink its size as stability - needs to be a production sysrtem
21:39:17 <tidoust> KJanowic: I think it will have to be a bit more substantial than that.
21:39:24 <DanhLePhuoc_> +q
21:39:40 <tidoust> ... OK, we need to be proactive about gathering evidence.
21:39:43 <KJanowic> Ack DanhLePhuoc
21:39:56 <roba> q+
21:40:12 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: I will check with Web of Things plugfest demos, as they have some things for actuation.
21:40:32 <KJanowic> Ack roba
21:41:06 <tidoust> roba: My impression is that it has nothing to do about the size, but rather stability. It needs to be in a production system.
21:41:18 <DanhLePhuoc_> q+
21:41:20 <tidoust> ... I think we should give it some thoughts before we spend too much time on demos.
21:41:33 <KJanowic> Ack DanhLePhuoc
21:41:34 <tidoust> KJanowic: I hope that academic usage will be ok.
21:42:44 <KJanowic> q+
21:42:48 <KJanowic> ack KJanowic
21:42:51 <tidoust> DanhLePhuoc: Even the industry, most of the work is in research labs, so it's not easy to find things in production.
21:42:57 <tidoust> ... We have to check.
21:43:11 <tidoust> ... It's really hard to find evidence within 3 month time.
21:43:38 <tidoust> KJanowic: In a EU research project, I think that would be enough.
21:43:50 <tidoust> ... It would be a chicken and egg problem.
21:43:51 <roba> just saying we should check...
21:44:30 <DanhLePhuoc_> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations
21:44:52 <DanhLePhuoc_> some of them are academic demontrations
21:45:59 <tidoust> Francois: [clarifying the needs are somewhere in between, CR phase is to ask for implementations and deployments or plans for deployments in actual production environments]
21:46:33 <tidoust> KJanowic: OK, it seems we have people looking at implementation evidence, this is good.
21:46:40 <tidoust> ... Any other topic to address in the last 10 minutes?
21:47:01 <tidoust> ... [recap of call discussions]
21:47:37 <KJanowic> q?
21:47:57 <RaulGarciaCastro> bye
21:47:57 <KJanowic> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:47:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-sdwssn-minutes.html KJanowic
21:47:58 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:47:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-sdwssn-minutes.html tidoust
21:48:08 <roba> bye
21:48:17 <KJanowic> Bye bye