Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

i can volunteer

<SimonCox> onya Armin

<kerry> scribe: ahaller2

<kerry> scribeNick ahaller2

<ScottSimmons> +1 to Jeremy's idea

<billroberts> sorry I'm a bit late

<ChrisLittle> +1 to bumping nonIRC

<kerry> propose: approve last weeks minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes.html

<Linda> +1

<jtandy> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<kerry> +1

<eparsons> +1

<SimonCox> 1

<MattPerry> +1

<robin> +1

<jtandy> s/apprive/APPROVE/

<ChrisLittle> +1

RESOLUTION: approve minutes

<LarsG> +0 (wasn't there)

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

<ClausStadler> +0 (unfortunately missed it as well)

Plan for meetings permitting parallel work

kerry: separate meetings for subgroups, time, ssn, potentially best practises
... proposal, subgroup meetings at the same time as currently, every other week

eparsons: at F2F we agreed to have the subgroups have a meeting at a time of their choosing, and every other week we have the meeting at large

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that we were trying to deconflict participating in multiple activities

ChrisLittle: agree to ed, leave people some flexibility to chose a time

<SimonCox> for me: time & ssn

<kerry> who want to be here for BP meetings?

<jtandy> +1

<eparsons> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<billroberts> +1

<Linda> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<LarsG> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<ChrisLittle> +0

<robin> +1

<kerry> who wants to attend time meetings?

<ChrisLittle> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<Linda> -1

<jtandy> -1

<eparsons> +0

<aharth> +1

<LarsG> +1

<kerry> +0

<AndreaPerego> +0

<SimonCox> Simon sticks his tongue out at Jeremy

<robin> +0

<ClausStadler> +0

<billroberts> +0

<MattPerry> +0

<ScottSimmons> +0.5

<jtandy> +1

<jtandy> reevaluate: +0

<kerry> who wants to attend ssn?

<Linda> +0

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

+1

<LarsG> +0

<ChrisLittle> +0

<robin> +1

<kerry> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<SimonCox> +0.5

<jtandy> +0.1

<billroberts> +0

<MattPerry> +0

<eparsons> -1

<ScottSimmons> +0

<billroberts> who wants to be in coverages

<eparsons> +1

<aharth> coverage

<ScottSimmons> +1

<jtandy> +1

<Linda> +0

<eparsons> +1

<billroberts> +1 (again)

<ChrisLittle> +1

<MattPerry> +0

<robin> +1

<kerry> +1!

<LarsG> +0

<RaulGarciaCastro> +0.5

<ClausStadler> +0

<billroberts> I can work it out from this list, thanks

<SimonCox> (is Jon Blower on the coverage list?)

<ChrisLittle> * Simon - will work on Jon B

jtandy: meeting with the data on the web people was scheduled for next week

eparsons: intention was to have more meetings, not less, thus we should keep the one next week

<billroberts> @SimonCox I'll assume Jon Blower is interested and include him in meeting time consultation

<ChrisLittle> @billroberts good idea

kerry: next week a full meeting at this time slot, with data on the web, after that we start with every alternate week

<jtandy> [so we need to set up the multiple meetings for w/c 7-march?]

eparsons: requirement for the editors of these subgroup meetings to inform the list and to keep the wiki updated with the agenda at least 24h before the meeting

<RaulGarciaCastro> Also with approval of minutes and patent call and so on?

kerry: yes, it should include minutes and patent call
... should be in the same irc channel, i.e. #sdw

<ChrisLittle> @SimonCox let us start sooner rather than later

Temporal Issues Time Issues and Notes

<SimonCox> About time!

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_Issues_and_Notes

ChrisLittle: commented on his notes, and that these notes should be discussed in the time working group

SimonCox: we have this nailed already ;-)

<kerry> +1

ChrisLittle: homework would be to make these notes in the current owl time document

jtandy: point simon to existing vocabs such as dcat and datacube that turn on/off ttl syntax/rdf syntax

aharth: question regarding predicates that compare time. Are they still in scope?

<kerry> +q

<jtandy> [and that the examples in those vocabs are provided in line]

SimonCox: no reason to interfere with that part

aharth: if you get imprecise with time, how do you do the comparison operators

SimonCox: comparison operator result will be undefined in certain circumstances

<kerry> +1 to simon

kerry: there is a strong user base of time, thus we would have to have a very strong reason to change or remove current components

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon

SimonCox: fully aware of that and have this as a principle

SSN: progress report and IoT-lite [1]

ahaller2: regarding webprotege and upload of ssn parts to webprotege, I received the namespace only 3 days ago, and did not have time yet to upload it. will do until next meeting

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/SUBM-iot-lite-20151126/#term_ActuatingDevice

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/03/Comment/

kerry: team comment was that this group should publish it as a note of the ssn work

<SimonCox> How does iot-lite interact with ssn 'skeleton'?

kerry: this was done together with the web of things interest group

<SimonCox> There was some discussion on list about factoring the SSN ontology, different principles that might be used.

ScottSimmons: this comes a bit cold

<SimonCox> OGC separates details into Observations vs Sensor-systems.

ahaller2: also wonder how this interacts with the skeleton?

<SimonCox> To allow different specialization choices in each.

<ScottSimmons> I'll just note that the submission has multiple places to enter the OGC process, we will just need to mutually agree on the best place

kerry: broadly it looks like ssn with some extensions
... has built into it the units ontology

<SimonCox> If skeleton classes are stubs, then that makes extensibility easier.

<SimonCox> qu-taxo is unavailable now! 404!

kerry: deals with actuations, in a very light way
... has a notation of coverage, very simple geometric description that the device represents

<SimonCox> QUDT is OK ... but v2.0 is now about 3 years overdue, and only rolling out in a rather punctuated fashion.

<SimonCox> ssn 'skeleton'

<SimonCox> so where are the observation results (values) found in iot-lite?

kerry: it is my believe that the observation part can be used in the ssn

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to wonder if this, or something similar, could be used as example around sensor data eg river flow gauge

jtandy: some things we do around the emergency response example, we are keen to include sensor apis from the OGC and also stuff from this ontology

kerry: i think for that use case you should be looking at the full SSN ontology

jtandy: adoption rate of sensor api in OGC is still minimal?

ScottSimmons: yes, it is still in research stage use
... some github players, but not yet wide adoption

SimonCox: What is the relation with ssn skeleton and where is the value in the observation?

kerry: it has not been aligned to SSN yet.

SimonCox: It is somehow a parallel work to SSN?

kerry: kind of, this should have a strong mapping to SSN, though.
... this is a metadata description and the value is delivered through an API attached to the service
... this is appropriate in IoT world

<SimonCox> SSN skeleton should provide high level view of how the moving parts are related to each other, without going into detail about 'content' of any of the classes.

<Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to ask how does iot-lite relate to ssn skeleton? and to ask where are the observation results (values) found in iot-lite?

<SimonCox> (Sorry - still haven't got the hang of zakim, so was a bit repetitive here).

kerry: editors, please get in touch with people who want to participate in the subgroup

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<RaulGarciaCastro> bye

<billroberts> thanks all - bye

<eparsons> bye !!

bye

<kerry> bye!

<ChrisLittle> bye