20:55:13 RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn 20:55:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-sdwssn-irc 20:55:14 kerry has changed the topic to: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161129 20:55:15 RRSAgent, make logs world 20:55:15 Zakim has joined #sdwssn 20:55:17 Zakim, this will be SDW 20:55:17 ok, trackbot 20:55:18 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 20:55:18 Date: 29 November 2016 20:55:37 present+ kerry 20:55:48 chair: Armin 20:58:52 present+ ahaller2 21:01:21 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 21:01:22 regrets+ scott simon 21:02:50 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 21:03:39 regrets+ scott 21:03:43 regrets+ simon 21:03:48 present+ kerry 21:05:29 KJanowic has joined #sdwssn 21:06:10 present+ kjanowic 21:07:35 scribe: ClausStadler 21:07:44 Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes 21:07:49 +1 21:07:52 +1 21:07:55 +1 21:07:56 +1 21:08:18 Patent Call 21:08:33 resolved: Approving last meeting's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes 21:09:03 topic: Assigning tasks on the writing of the WD http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ for December 16th deadline 21:09:13 topic: Assigning tasks on the writing of the WD http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ for December 16th deadline 21:09:31 KJanowic has joined #sdwssn 21:10:36 q+ 21:10:45 Updates to SSN ontology, especially actuation, modularization (several has been superseeded by discussions now), sosa-core naming, 21:10:49 q? 21:10:54 spec generation has been looked into; couple of issues that can be solved, either manually or hacking into the python code 21:10:55 ack kerry 21:11:27 q+ 21:11:28 s/several has been/several currently written things have been 21:12:15 ack ahaller 21:12:57 kerry: not sure if all issues with specgen can be fixed, such as cardinality restrictions / multiple restrictions with the same property 21:13:53 classes and properties not linked in the output, difficulties with hash / slash uris 21:14:01 q+ 21:14:18 ack KJanowic 21:15:08 KJanowic: manual changes will be lost after regeneration; bad idea 21:15:16 q? 21:15:37 ahaller2: will try to fix issues in the code 21:15:48 IMHO, this has great potential for going terribly wrong. 21:16:14 q+ to suggest to armin we meet in person to go through this 21:16:25 ahaller2: changing in the code would probably the better way to go 21:17:15 I can update the intro section (which I also originally drafted) 21:17:17 q+ 21:17:25 I can do the sosa parts 21:17:37 volunteers needed to go throught the text: such as introduction, goals 21:17:48 ack kerry 21:17:48 kerry, you wanted to suggest to armin we meet in person to go through this 21:18:12 KJanowic: volunteers for introduction (and possibly other parts) 21:18:18 I volunteer to do all the SOSA related parts 21:18:23 ahaller: happy to rewrite modularization part, update the graph, there are no longer imports, no longer call it 'core' because it isn't 21:19:08 kerry: work on the dulce alignment, equivalenc class axioms - need to be norminative 21:19:18 s/equivalenc/equivalence 21:22:14 ahaller: will alot of the equivalent axioms point to the dolce part? 21:22:23 kerry: refer to the SSN classes in the old namespace; decision was made on the observation part, others need to be worked on 21:22:33 ahaller: if label gets changed, its no longer the same thing 21:23:27 q+ 21:24:29 ahaller2: danh and raul to work on the table (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table) 21:24:47 It seems you cannot hear me 21:24:56 Yes 21:25:06 ack KJanowic 21:25:31 q- 21:25:38 claus! not that table! 21:25:58 ack kerry 21:25:58 my bad - which table were you referring to? 21:26:18 I’ve been taking a look to the usage of the SSN ontology: haven’t found many datasets using it. I have also searched for ontologies reusing SSN 21:26:28 I collect the analysis I’ve made and will share with the group 21:27:08 I’m working in the analysis of the usage of SSN (right now not on the implementation report) 21:27:09 Claus: by the table we mean the implementation report overview table 21:27:13 kerry: implementation report is not in the deliverable, its a separate document 21:27:33 Thanks for clarification 21:28:05 q? 21:28:10 I don’t know :) 21:28:24 ahaller2: Its not decided yet, others put the implementation report into the deliverable, it could be an annex 21:28:42 topic: Decision on removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem ISSUE 85 21:28:45 I’m working on it; right now the problem is the lack of datasets (i.e., the coverage is low) 21:28:56 issue-85 ? 21:28:56 issue-85 -- remove someValues from restriction on hassubsystem -- raised 21:28:56 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85 21:29:11 q? 21:30:10 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/226 21:31:09 s/dolce/dulce 21:32:36 q? 21:34:10 Long version short, our current axiom is fine and in line with Mereology and its axiomatizations and also what DUL meant by hasPart. that said, I do not see any harm by removing the existential quantification 21:34:11 q+ 21:34:31 ack KJanowic 21:35:37 q? 21:35:40 kerry: If the presence of the existencal restriction improves reasoning, it would be a strong reason to keep it. 21:35:41 +1 to removing the restriction, I don’t like forcing systems to include hasPart with themselves just to be consistent 21:37:21 You do not enforce this 21:37:32 ack kerry 21:37:49 for two reasons, first because of our haspart definition and second because the OWA 21:38:26 OK 21:40:18 ahaller2: Can the restrictions be moved into the DUL aligment? 21:40:26 My point is that the forall quantification alone will not do anything. it only states that if there would be something it would be inferred to be a (sub)system. It does *not* restrict the predicate 21:40:51 q+ 21:41:45 ack KJanowic 21:41:54 ahaller2: Advantage would be that it makes the new SSN more lightweight 21:42:36 agreed! that is the point! 21:42:42 q? 21:43:43 KJanowic: The exsistential restriction does: If there would be a usage of the hasSubSystem relation to something, such as chewin gum then the chewing gum would be a system. It does not restrict the usage of hasSubSystem. 21:43:47 q+ 21:43:59 s/chewin /chewing 21:44:02 ack kerry 21:44:05 Claus: the forall restriction, not the existential restriction 21:45:00 sorry kerry for not being clear, I meant how we used the local closure in other parts of the system definition: https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn#System 21:45:15 s/KJanowic: The exsistential restriction does/KJanowic: The forall restriction does 21:45:42 dont park it! 21:45:52 q+ 21:46:39 -1 21:47:37 Vote between removing the existential restrictions on hasSubSystem or keeping the existential or removing universal and existential 21:48:01 Too many or clauses :-) 21:48:06 removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem ISSUE 85 21:48:17 q+ 21:48:23 ack KJanowic 21:49:09 It is also really low priority (this may all change depending on the other changes we do) 21:49:28 removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem ISSUE 85 21:50:42 If kerry believes that this is a big step in usability of ssn, I am fine to go with kerry's suggestion 21:50:56 kerry to decide on issue 85 as editor of the new SSN 21:51:06 +1 21:51:08 +1 21:51:09 +1 21:51:10 +1 21:52:01 q+ to say I did edit it a bit --- marked as "(kerry)" 21:52:28 topic: Annotations in mapping table https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table 21:52:41 Okay, I will look into this 21:52:41 q+ to say I did edit it a bit --- marked as "(kerry)" in table 21:53:12 q+ to suggest that won't make the WD 21:53:16 q? 21:53:41 ahaller2: There were no recent updates or comments on the annotation table. Decision in one of the last meetings to introduce our own rdfs:comments and annotations. Anyone who has objections to these annotations should raise an issue in the table. 21:53:48 q? 21:53:52 ack kerry 21:53:52 kerry, you wanted to say I did edit it a bit --- marked as "(kerry)" and to say I did edit it a bit --- marked as "(kerry)" in table and to suggest that won't make the WD 21:54:10 topic: Remove featureOfInterest Class? i.e., second part of Issue ISSUE 86 and observableProperty?, i.e. second part of ISSUE 87 21:54:27 issue-86 21:54:27 issue-86 -- Annotation for a feature of interest --- and why do we need it at all? -- raised 21:54:27 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86 21:54:46 I would strongly be against removing the FOI class 21:54:54 q? 21:55:16 q+ 21:55:22 moved to issue-94 21:55:24 ack KJanowic 21:55:29 issue-94? 21:55:29 issue-94 -- Why do we need the sosa-core Feature of interest class at all? -- raised 21:55:29 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/94 21:56:45 Q+ 21:56:55 ack Ahaller 21:57:04 KJanowic: FeatureOfInterest class has use cases, such as for filtering by that class in a faceted browser. Also, features that have no yet observed data could already be declared as instances of that class in advance. 21:57:30 Many reasons not to do that: APIs, faceted browsing, FOI that have not yet been sensed, creating subclasses,... 21:57:34 +1 to leave it 21:57:34 +1 to KJanowic 21:57:35 q? 21:57:39 +1 to leave it 21:57:44 I would vote -1 on removing , i.e., +1 on leaving it in there 21:58:07 + leaving 21:58:11 +1 leaving 21:58:17 +1 on leaving 21:58:39 close issue-94 21:58:39 Closed issue-94. 21:58:44 also keep observableproperty 21:58:49 q? 21:58:55 we also closed 85, right? 21:59:32 RaulGarciaCastro has left #sdwssn 21:59:40 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn 21:59:48 close issue-85 21:59:48 Closed issue-85. 21:59:51 q? 22:00:03 thanks for the productive meeting, bye bye 22:00:04 Bye! 22:00:09 bye, thanks 22:00:12 bye! 22:00:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:00:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-sdwssn-minutes.html kerry 22:00:51 rrsagent, make logs public 22:01:00 RRSAgent, make logs public 22:01:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:01:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-sdwssn-minutes.html ahaller2 22:13:35 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn 22:15:30 ahaller2_ has joined #sdwssn 22:47:50 ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn