SDW WG, SSN Sub Group Telecon

<kerry> scribe: Joel Ramsay

<kerry> scribenick: JRamsay

approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes

<kerry> +1

<SimonCox> 1

<SimonCox> +1

+1

<ClausStadler> +1

<ahaller2> +1

RESOLUTION: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes

<kerry> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

UCR -- action-111 see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0084.html

<kerry> topic : UCR -- action-111 see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0084.html (Frans?)

<frans> ACTION: 111 to https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding '111'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<kerry> ?action-111

<frans> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Various_Sensor_Use_Cases_.28SSN.29

<frans> 1) Review the extent to which domain-specific or open-ended elements of SSN should be extended, possibly by reference to external ontologies (skos-like vocabularies) as exemplars, or by small additional components.

<frans> 2) Model tasking, programming and actuation of sensing devices.

frans: talking action-111- original use cases. Requirement 2- do you agree that it is a good requirement? Is something required by the outside world?

ahaller2: is a good requirement, looking at web of things- input and output good. Important requirement

roba: looking at requirements and use cases- concern- is it a domain specific use case?
... not 100% comfortable with translation to requirements, what to look to.

frans: lots of requirements for best practices also are very general
... this particular one looks rather specific to SSN

<phila> phila: Apologies for being late - had to use a diff laptop for WebEx

roba: issue is still to understand how to standardise approach within domain. There is lots of detail overlap.

Kerry: are we talking about the same thing? Talking about requirement on SSN, from UCR doc

ahaller2: for first requirement- a little abstract?

<ahaller2> +1 for 2nd requirement

RESOLUTION: ucr doc to incorp requirement for actuation

<kerry> ucr : Review the extent to which domain-specific or open-ended elements of SSN should be extended, possibly by reference to external ontologies (skos-like vocabularies) as exemplars, or by small additional components.

<frans> Is it a requirement for examples that show how ssn can be used?

Kerry: yes, this has all sorts of things of people wanting on advice on how to do things that SSN may not do itself. May not need to be a requirement. Could be best practice

<frans> Then I think is is a good and valid requirement

RESOLUTION: Frans to include appropriate use case on (1) above

SSN: Issue tracking and public discussion (PhilA?)

phila: things are being discussed in two places- github and issue tracker. This is a problem for archiving.
... github doesn't have a pledge for archiving
... all conversations should be recorded and archived. Whole group should know what is happening. Not everyone sees github..

<ChrisLittle> +1 to discussions on mailing list. Docs on GitHub

phila: discussion specific to doc itself can go on github

ScottSimmons: OGC has the same policy.

Kerry: I also think that is is important to use mailing list to include the rest of the sdw working group

ahaller2: Thats okay. some things are just much easier on github.

phila: just be aware of the audience. If the issue is better discussed on github, do that, but consider mailing list first.
... when chair is looking at issues in meetings, look at github also?
... we don't want to be dictatorial. As long as everyone is aware, thats the important thing.

<kerry> UCR - reviewing for SSN requirements issue-73 and https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05 (Kerry)

<phila> issue-73?

<trackbot> issue-73 -- Ssn group needs to produce a wiki document that realtes to requirements met or not from ucr -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73

UCR - reviewing for SSN requirements issue-73 and https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05 (Kerry)

Kerry: anybody who is happy to look through the UCR doc to analyse from W3C working group perspective?

<frans> editor´s draft of the UCR doc: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

<kerry> ACTION: roba to review UCR doc from an SSN viewpoint -- is it complete and correct? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Review ucr doc from an ssn viewpoint -- is it complete and correct? [on Rob Atkinson - due 2016-08-30].

roba: The comments I've made previously still haven't been mentioned in there, and are key concerns for spatial data. Is a challenge though.
... I'm willing to give this a review, but I need to understand better how to do this.

<SimonCox> roba: UoM & precision are relevant to many UCs - probably a BP issue rather than narrowly SSN?

roba: if we are keeping the integrity, we need to make sure it gets into the use case requirements

phila: we will need a table in the doc that says how we met the requirements, or why they aren't relevant to address.

frans: it is probably out of scope for spatial data.

My audio just dropped out for scribing the last 30s. Anyone catch that?

<kerry> roba: precision and uom needs to be pushed inot one or more of our deliverables

<SimonCox> (talking about internationalization, ISO standards allow for the French-style decimal point indicator - comma vs. period!)

thanks

roba: is it BP or SSN?

Kerry: Both

<SimonCox> phila: expressing quantity (or 'measure') as number+uom is like internationalization ...

frans: many requirements just come from doing things the way you are meant to do them

SimonCox: there is similarity between CRS and UoM.

<frans> But CRS is really spatial

SimonCox: the pattern is the same.

<kerry> roba: suiggests tweaking the CRS ucr to include uom and precision....

<kerry> issue: that uom and precision should be covered in UCR and BP (and respected in other deliverables too)

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-74 - That uom and precision should be covered in ucr and bp (and respected in other deliverables too). Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/74/edit>.

ChrisLittle: did roba mean precision or accuracy?

roba: precision.

SimonCox: Did a lot of the writing in the time deliverable. Temporal issues coming up a lot. Accuracy is more centrally part of this group.

<SimonCox> Reference systems stuff coming up a lot ...

<kerry> Web of Things: joint meeting with oneM2M today https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0070.html

<kerry> Web of Things: meet at Lisbon, possibly https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/SessionIdeas

<ChrisLittle> Bye

<frans> Good night or day!

<SimonCox> bye