IRC log of ssn on 2010-02-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:41:16 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ssn
- 19:41:16 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/16-ssn-irc
- 19:41:18 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 19:41:18 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ssn
- 19:41:20 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 7769
- 19:41:20 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see INC_SSN()3:00PM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
- 19:41:21 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group Teleconference
- 19:41:21 [trackbot]
- Date: 16 February 2010
- 19:41:38 [Holger]
- agenda+ Roll call
- 19:41:45 [Holger]
- agenda+ Actions from last meeting
- 19:41:52 [Holger]
- agenda+ Next steps for SSN Ontology
- 19:42:00 [Holger]
- agenda+ What happened in Dagstuhl?
- 19:42:06 [Holger]
- agenda+ AOB
- 19:42:17 [Holger]
- Chair: Holger
- 19:42:23 [Holger]
- Regrets: Oscar, Kevin
- 19:54:04 [Zakim]
- INC_SSN()3:00PM has now started
- 19:54:11 [Zakim]
- + +036232aaaa
- 19:54:26 [Holger]
- zakim, +036232aaaa is me
- 19:54:26 [Zakim]
- +Holger; got it
- 19:54:31 [laurent_oz]
- laurent_oz has joined #ssn
- 19:55:32 [kerry]
- kerry has joined #ssn
- 19:57:03 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 19:57:54 [Payam]
- zakim, ??P5 is me
- 19:57:54 [Zakim]
- +Payam; got it
- 19:58:42 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 19:58:45 [Zakim]
- +kerry
- 19:58:59 [Arthur]
- Arthur has joined #ssn
- 19:58:59 [laurent_oz]
- ??P10 is me
- 19:59:48 [Holger]
- Laurent, that's "zakim, ??P10 is me" ;-)
- 20:00:21 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 20:00:41 [Arthur]
- zakim, ??P11 is me
- 20:00:41 [Zakim]
- +Arthur; got it
- 20:02:07 [laurent_oz]
- zakim, ??P10 is me
- 20:02:07 [Zakim]
- +laurent_oz; got it
- 20:02:41 [Holger]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:02:41 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Holger, Payam, laurent_oz, kerry, Arthur
- 20:03:37 [michael]
- michael has joined #ssn
- 20:04:10 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 20:04:26 [michael]
- zakim, ??P12 is me
- 20:04:26 [Zakim]
- +michael; got it
- 20:06:47 [krzysztof_j]
- krzysztof_j has joined #ssn
- 20:06:53 [cory]
- cory has joined #ssn
- 20:07:34 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 20:08:11 [krzysztof_j]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 20:08:11 [Zakim]
- +krzysztof_j; got it
- 20:08:18 [Zakim]
- + +1.937.775.aabb
- 20:08:31 [Holger]
- agenda?
- 20:10:48 [Payam]
- I can do this
- 20:10:53 [krzysztof_j]
- i will do no problem
- 20:11:20 [Holger]
- ScribeNick: laurent_oz
- 20:12:32 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: W3C responded to our request for extension for 6 months positively - to be announced formally
- 20:13:14 [laurent_oz]
- Thank you to everybody which help for the draft report to help us to meet the extension
- 20:13:23 [krzysztof_j]
- worlds
- 20:13:36 [krzysztof_j]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/images/5/5c/Sensor_ontology_alignment_to_dolce.pdf
- 20:14:09 [laurent_oz]
- Krzystof_j talking about how to align our ontology with Dolce
- 20:16:00 [laurent_oz]
- Discuss difference between observing the process and observation
- 20:17:14 [laurent_oz]
- 3rd slide list concepts which needs to be clearly separated to avoid misuse of the SSN ontology
- 20:19:14 [laurent_oz]
- Slide 4 lists concepts which could be anchored to DOLCE as perdurants
- 20:21:10 [laurent_oz]
- Point to discuss: sensing as an event rather than a process
- 20:24:12 [laurent_oz]
- Slide 5 Feature used in two ways
- 20:24:36 [laurent_oz]
- Holger: is it easy or hard to align our ontology to Dolce
- 20:24:37 [michael]
- +q
- 20:24:39 [kerry]
- +q
- 20:24:45 [laurent_oz]
- Answer: it's relatively easy
- 20:24:50 [Holger]
- ack michael
- 20:25:42 [Holger]
- ack kerry
- 20:26:00 [laurent_oz]
- Michael: two aspects, conceptualisation and data model - how we manage both aspects?
- 20:27:22 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: it is better to let both aspects of an observation in the ontology
- 20:27:41 [krzysztof_j]
- +q
- 20:27:58 [laurent_oz]
- But the ontology should not be prescriptive in the format of the record of the observation
- 20:28:58 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: the ontology should specify that the record of observation has a time
- 20:29:17 [krzysztof_j]
- ack to all you said
- 20:30:13 [Holger]
- ack krzysztof_j
- 20:30:49 [laurent_oz]
- Krzysztof: challenge for sensors - they are the boundary of the real world and a world where we talk about models
- 20:31:02 [cory]
- +q
- 20:31:15 [Holger]
- ack cory
- 20:32:13 [laurent_oz]
- Cory: if we look at how properties are interpreted depending on how we use observation - location of a record is diffewrent from location of the observation itself
- 20:32:19 [krzysztof_j]
- ack
- 20:32:47 [krzysztof_j]
- +q
- 20:34:21 [Holger]
- ack krzysztof_j
- 20:34:34 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: need clarification on where to attach properties
- 20:35:32 [krzysztof_j]
- the location is also produced by an observation
- 20:35:59 [krzysztof_j]
- and hence lat/lon (or whatever) is also an observation record
- 20:36:19 [krzysztof_j]
- therefore we can have information about the location of a real world observation in its observation record
- 20:37:09 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: "everything is an information" = overloading the observation concept
- 20:37:41 [krzysztof_j]
- but isn't this the case for OGC's sensor systems, the gps is just part of a huger sensor system
- 20:37:51 [Payam]
- +q
- 20:37:57 [laurent_oz]
- correction: everything is an observation
- 20:38:09 [Holger]
- ack Payam
- 20:38:57 [laurent_oz]
- Payam: searching for the observation and searching for the sensors are the two main targets
- 20:38:57 [laurent_oz]
- for the scope of the ontology
- 20:39:50 [cory]
- +q
- 20:39:54 [michael]
- +q
- 20:39:58 [Holger]
- ack cory
- 20:40:16 [laurent_oz]
- Holger: we need to make clear the linkage between the sensor and observation
- 20:41:02 [Holger]
- ack michael
- 20:41:12 [laurent_oz]
- Cory: we also have provenance as a use case: provenance - do we point at where the record comes from (is stored) or go back to the sensor
- 20:42:22 [laurent_oz]
- Michael: looking at the last slide, we need to separate the abstract definition of the step and the record that at some time we've done these steps
- 20:43:19 [Payam]
- +q
- 20:43:37 [Zakim]
- -kerry
- 20:44:07 [Payam]
- -q
- 20:44:09 [Zakim]
- +kerry
- 20:44:53 [laurent_oz]
- Holger: what we have in the ontology is not the"real world event obsrvation" - question to K. : observation as an event is the real world observation and we need to put what's corresponding to the record (the produced data) would be in another place
- 20:44:56 [Payam]
- +q
- 20:45:54 [krzysztof_j]
- +q
- 20:46:23 [michael]
- observation has feature of interest, procedure etc - but they are restrictions on domains and range of properties, not observation
- 20:46:29 [Holger]
- ack Payam
- 20:46:48 [michael]
- this was because we haven't made a decision as to if they were defining aspects of an observation or things it may have
- 20:46:59 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 20:47:11 [michael]
- yes
- 20:47:23 [laurent_oz]
- - Payam understands Michael's separation of concepts - 3 parts
- 20:47:23 [laurent_oz]
- Device itself
- 20:47:23 [laurent_oz]
- the process it does
- 20:47:23 [laurent_oz]
- The result
- 20:47:30 [Manfred_DERI]
- Manfred_DERI has joined #ssn
- 20:49:29 [krzysztof_j]
- +q
- 20:50:53 [Payam]
- The modelling could be done in layers
- 20:51:13 [Payam]
- starting from the device which does the observation
- 20:51:29 [Payam]
- then modelling the process and observation
- 20:52:02 [Payam]
- the accuracy and other quality of information parameters could be added to this model in different layers later
- 20:52:14 [kerry]
- I think K makes a good point: restrictions on the observation woud b cleaner than on the properties
- 20:52:58 [laurent_oz]
- Krzysztof's question was on how we use restrictions (someValuesFrom vs. domain/range) and the level of reasoning support we want to have
- 20:53:33 [michael]
- +q
- 20:53:49 [Holger]
- ack krzysztof_j
- 20:54:17 [Holger]
- ack michael
- 20:54:28 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry also prefers the ontology design style where restriction are used locally
- 20:54:43 [laurent_oz]
- Michael: we have made those commitments
- 20:55:30 [krzysztof_j]
- +q
- 20:55:35 [Holger]
- ack krzysztof_j
- 20:55:44 [laurent_oz]
- Michael: Observation is defined by having those restrictions
- 20:57:39 [krzysztof_j]
- ack
- 20:57:57 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry: can we have a vote on our choice to use local restrictions?
- 20:58:28 [laurent_oz]
- Rather than domain and range attached to properties
- 20:59:05 [krzysztof_j]
- +1
- 20:59:19 [michael]
- +q
- 20:59:23 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry adding an exception for the datatype properties where the range is expected to be defined
- 21:00:48 [krzysztof_j]
- maybe, but this is again about ontological commitments and i would always try to reduce them to a minimum
- 21:01:32 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry notes that at this stage we have not used datatype properties
- 21:01:32 [laurent_oz]
- but we may do so when we become more concrete
- 21:01:45 [Holger]
- vote: preferred usage of local restrictions over global restrictions
- 21:01:57 [Payam]
- +1
- 21:01:57 [laurent_oz]
- +1
- 21:01:58 [krzysztof_j]
- +1
- 21:02:00 [kerry]
- +1
- 21:02:01 [cory]
- +1
- 21:02:01 [Manfred_DERI]
- +1
- 21:02:11 [michael]
- +1
- 21:02:17 [Holger]
- +1
- 21:02:51 [laurent_oz]
- +q
- 21:02:53 [kerry]
- +q
- 21:03:00 [michael]
- -q
- 21:03:02 [Holger]
- ack michael
- 21:03:21 [Holger]
- ack laurent_oz
- 21:03:24 [krzysztof_j]
- (i have to leave in 2min, sorry (I would like to do the DOLCE alignment))
- 21:03:43 [krzysztof_j]
- this would be difficult
- 21:04:53 [laurent_oz]
- Laurent: making the point that it would be good to leave the user having the choice to import DOLCE or not
- 21:05:25 [kerry]
- +q
- 21:05:44 [Holger]
- ack kerry
- 21:06:05 [laurent_oz]
- Krzysztof: there are cases where the decision to import would create a class of external statements which would become tricky to manage (e.g. a property declared at the top level as transitive)
- 21:06:53 [krzysztof_j]
- I will, thanks for all the comments!
- 21:06:59 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry thinks that if we carefully manage it, we should not have problems as long as we repeat those statements which are also in DOLCE
- 21:07:08 [krzysztof_j]
- cu
- 21:07:14 [Zakim]
- -krzysztof_j
- 21:08:06 [laurent_oz]
- Kerry will present what she has on device next week
- 21:08:40 [Manfred_DERI]
- great!
- 21:09:17 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 21:09:17 [michael]
- michael has left #ssn
- 21:09:18 [cory]
- bye
- 21:09:18 [Zakim]
- -Payam
- 21:09:20 [Arthur]
- Arthur has left #ssn
- 21:09:20 [Zakim]
- -Arthur
- 21:09:22 [Zakim]
- -michael
- 21:09:32 [Holger]
- zakim, bye
- 21:09:32 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees were Holger, Payam, kerry, Arthur, laurent_oz, michael, krzysztof_j, +1.937.775.aabb, [IPcaller]
- 21:09:32 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ssn
- 21:09:40 [Holger]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 21:09:53 [Holger]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 21:09:53 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/02/16-ssn-minutes.html Holger
- 21:10:03 [Holger]
- rrsagent, bye
- 21:10:03 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items