IRC log of sdwssn on 2017-02-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:57:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdwssn
20:57:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/07-sdwssn-irc
20:57:43 [Kjanowic]
Kjanowic has joined #sdwssn
20:57:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
20:57:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdwssn
20:57:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
20:57:46 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
20:57:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20:57:47 [trackbot]
Date: 07 February 2017
20:57:57 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn
20:58:03 [phila]
s/Working/SSN Sub/
20:58:10 [Kjanowic]
present+
20:58:11 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:58:16 [phila]
chair: Armin
20:58:28 [phila]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170207
20:58:29 [Kerry]
present+ Kerry
20:58:44 [DanhLePhuoc]
DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdwssn
20:59:33 [ScottSimmons]
ScottSimmons has joined #sdwssn
21:00:25 [rtroncy]
present+
21:00:54 [ScottSimmons]
present+ ScottSimmons
21:01:04 [DanhLePhuoc]
present+ DanhLePhuoc
21:01:39 [phila]
present+
21:01:48 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
21:02:02 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdwssn
21:03:30 [Kerry]
i willscribe
21:03:44 [ahaller2]
scribe: Kjanowic
21:03:52 [ahaller2]
topic: patent call
21:04:39 [roba]
roba has joined #sdwssn
21:04:51 [ahaller2]
topic: Create Options for the modelling of Actuation, Actuator and its relations (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/91), i.e. change due date on https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/215 (create Action Item)
21:05:18 [phila]
scribeNick: Kjanowic
21:05:38 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:05:56 [Kerry]
q+ to remark I think maxime did that yesterday
21:06:00 [ahaller2]
q?
21:06:04 [Kjanowic]
Is anybody willing to model actuation in SSN
21:06:05 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:06:31 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: I volunteered, but we had other conversations in between
21:06:52 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: until next telco
21:06:56 [ahaller2]
ack Kerry
21:06:56 [Zakim]
Kerry, you wanted to remark I think maxime did that yesterday
21:07:17 [Kjanowic]
kjanowic to draft SSN axioms on Actuators and Actuation for next week
21:07:36 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: can kjanowic look into the proposal of Maxime?
21:07:39 [Kjanowic]
kjanowic: yes
21:07:44 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdwssn
21:07:52 [ahaller2]
q?
21:07:55 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: yes, lets see what else is out there
21:08:02 [SimonCox]
present+ SimonCox
21:08:08 [SimonCox]
q?
21:08:13 [Kjanowic]
yes
21:08:20 [ahaller2]
q?
21:08:31 [ahaller2]
topic: Create Options for the modelling of Results/Values in SOSA and SSN https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/90 (create Action Item)
21:09:12 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: a lot of discussion of how to model values and results n SOSA and SSN
21:09:15 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:09:52 [ahaller2]
q?
21:09:56 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:11:00 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: Danh willlook into the results/values issue and coordinate with kjanowic
21:11:41 [Kjanowic]
DaDanh: Yes, I will do so and review the material and work with kjanowic. I will create a wikipage as overview.
21:11:53 [Kjanowic]
s/DaDanh/Danh
21:12:23 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: In general using wikipages for all these subtasks would be good.
21:12:32 [ahaller2]
action: DanhLePhuoc to create a wiki page and discuss options around the use of Results in SSN/SOSA
21:12:32 [trackbot]
Error finding 'DanhLePhuoc'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
21:12:54 [ahaller2]
action: Danh to create a wiki page and discuss options around the use of Results in SSN/SOSA
21:12:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-264 - Create a wiki page and discuss options around the use of results in ssn/sosa [on Danh Le Phuoc - due 2017-02-14].
21:12:58 [ahaller2]
q?
21:13:12 [ahaller2]
topic: 3.Create Options for the modelling of Processes/Procedures in SOSA and SSN https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89 (create Action Item)
21:13:53 [kerry]
kerry has joined #sdwssn
21:13:58 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: we changed back and forth between processes and procedures.
21:14:15 [kerry]
sorry folks -- lost all power to house
21:14:27 [ahaller2]
q?
21:14:40 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: what we currently have currently is a procedure as the description of workflows, e.g. like receipt.
21:14:47 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: I can look into this
21:14:58 [ahaller2]
action: Armin Create to create options for the modelling of Processes/Procedures in SOSA and SSN https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89 (create Action Item)
21:15:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-265 - Create to create options for the modelling of processes/procedures in sosa and ssn https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89 (create action item) [on Armin Haller - due 2017-02-14].
21:15:04 [kerry]
q+ to ask for current topic
21:15:08 [ahaller2]
q?
21:15:13 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:15:13 [Zakim]
kerry, you wanted to ask for current topic
21:15:19 [Kjanowic]
s/receipt/recipe
21:15:45 [ahaller2]
q?
21:15:46 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: we are currently assigning action items
21:15:53 [ahaller2]
Create Options for alignment on Platform class (create Action Item)
21:15:56 [ahaller2]
topic: Create Options for alignment on Platform class (create Action Item)
21:16:23 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: we had many discussions around the concept of a platform.
21:16:34 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN
21:16:36 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: one such proposal was by kerry.
21:16:49 [kerry]
q+
21:17:09 [Kjanowic]
kerry: that was really only an example
21:17:25 [Kjanowic]
kerry: the point I was trying to make was the style, not the concrete example
21:17:52 [Kjanowic]
kerry: I think we lost a bit of that original proposal made by kjanowic at the very beginning
21:17:57 [SimonCox]
q+
21:18:13 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: about namespaces?
21:18:21 [Kjanowic]
kerry: the example I gave works in both ways
21:18:24 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:18:36 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: not sure what you mean?
21:19:01 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: Kerry, have you looked at the work we did before on that?
21:19:15 [SimonCox]
q-
21:19:16 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:19:21 [phila]
ack ke
21:19:39 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: bidirectional interoperability is lost now from kjanowic original proposal
21:20:11 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: we probably gave up on horizontal by now but the proposal as such is still valid
21:20:32 [Kjanowic]
q+ (needs to really jump in here)
21:21:12 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: please let us get back to ‘platform’
21:21:25 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: namespaces will be discussed next week
21:21:30 [kerry]
q+ to continure
21:21:53 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: not about namespaces
21:22:04 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:22:19 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: we want to discuss ‘platform’ now
21:22:34 [Kjanowic]
let's get back on topic guys....
21:23:22 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: we looked at architecture last week, but we got stuck at namespaces. We will discuss this next time.
21:23:23 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:23:58 [Kjanowic]
lets get back to the topic and also note that other people are on the call
21:24:25 [Kjanowic]
Kerry talks about properties of her suggested approach
21:24:26 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:25:01 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:25:19 [roba]
its when restrictions change semantics, rather than axiomitize them that this gets messy
21:25:20 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: I have a well worked proposal for platform
21:25:35 [kerry]
no!!!!
21:25:38 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: kerry, so please tell us about your platform idea
21:25:57 [Kjanowic]
kerry, please lets get less emotional
21:25:59 [ahaller2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN
21:26:41 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:27:19 [ahaller2]
q?
21:27:35 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: we already agreed on the fact that ssn will import sosa
21:27:57 [rtroncy]
Can someone summarize what is the exact issue with the definition of a "Platform" ? (regardless where this term will be defined or refined)
21:28:40 [laurent_oz]
laurent_oz has joined #sdwssn
21:28:42 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: please look at the proposal and just extract the platform part.
21:28:45 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:29:00 [Kjanowic]
rtroncy has a question and I believe it is important
21:29:05 [phila]
q- (needs
21:29:14 [Kjanowic]
there are more people on this call...
21:29:25 [phila]
q+ rtroncy
21:29:30 [phila]
q- kerry
21:29:33 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: it is all already there
21:30:01 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: should I do a change list
21:30:21 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: make a wiki/example fot platform only
21:30:27 [Kjanowic]
s/fot/for
21:30:47 [ahaller2]
q?
21:30:51 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:31:44 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: if we look at the mapping, the SSN definition for Platform is more generic
21:31:55 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: SOSA should be more generic in its annotation
21:32:06 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: axiomatically they are equivalent
21:32:12 [ahaller2]
q?
21:32:22 [ahaller2]
ack rtroncy
21:32:35 [Kjanowic]
rtroncy: kjanowic answered the question [difficult to understand...]
21:32:59 [kerry]
issue-88?
21:32:59 [trackbot]
issue-88 -- Why is a sosa-core platofrm completely different to an ssn:platform? -- open
21:32:59 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88
21:32:59 [ahaller2]
q?
21:33:08 [Kjanowic]
kjanowic was tring to answer rtroncy question
21:33:23 [rtroncy]
I also asked whether the problem was not described in issue-88?
21:33:36 [rtroncy]
It seems so ...
21:33:50 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: can you make one wikipage just for ssn and sosa platform without the general architecture, just the platform.
21:34:30 [ahaller2]
action: Kerry to Create change list for alignment on Platform class in a seperate wiki page
21:34:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-266 - Create change list for alignment on platform class in a seperate wiki page [on Kerry Taylor - due 2017-02-14].
21:34:44 [ahaller2]
q?
21:34:54 [rtroncy2]
rtroncy2 has joined #sdwssn
21:35:21 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: next topic o&m alignment
21:35:39 [ahaller2]
topic: Vote on how to use annotation properties for examples in SOSA/SSN
21:36:04 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: let us briefly talk about annotation properties for examples in SOSA/SSN
21:36:18 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: idea was to split definition and example.
21:36:38 [ahaller2]
Option 1: Use skos:example in SOSA/SSN and declare it an owl annotation property
21:36:45 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: this is especially important for sosa due to less axioms
21:36:53 [ahaller2]
Option 2: Define our own annotation property -- e.g. sosa/ssn:example
21:37:25 [Kjanowic]
ahaller: please vote on option 1
21:37:29 [ahaller2]
Proposed: Use skos:example in SOSA/SSN and declare it an owl annotation property
21:37:33 [rtroncy2]
+1
21:37:34 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:37:35 [SimonCox]
+1
21:37:35 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+1
21:37:35 [Kjanowic]
+1
21:37:39 [laurent_oz]
0
21:37:41 [ahaller2]
+1
21:37:45 [kerry]
+1 subject to not importing skos
21:37:50 [roba]
+1
21:37:53 [ScottSimmons]
+1
21:38:13 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: do we want to import skos?
21:38:14 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:38:25 [rtroncy2]
There is no need to import
21:38:31 [ahaller2]
Option: Import or not import SKOS?
21:38:34 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:38:35 [SimonCox]
-1 no import of skos
21:38:46 [RaulGarciaCastro]
-1
21:39:03 [Kjanowic]
kjanowic: if we only use skos:example there is not need to import
21:39:16 [ahaller2]
PROPOSE: If skos:example is the only class/property in either SSN or SOSA we do not import SKOS
21:39:23 [Kjanowic]
+1
21:39:26 [phila]
+1
21:39:27 [kerry]
+1
21:39:28 [rtroncy2]
+1
21:39:28 [ahaller2]
+1
21:39:30 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+1
21:39:33 [roba]
+1
21:39:35 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:39:36 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:39:37 [ahaller2]
q?
21:39:41 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:39:41 [ScottSimmons]
+1
21:39:51 [phila]
I see no reason to import SKOS
21:39:52 [laurent_oz]
no import (but more general concern about the compatibility of reuse of schema.org meta-model and use of skos (e.g. like in RDF data cube)
21:39:52 [SimonCox]
+1 - I would extend to any SKOS annotation property
21:40:10 [ahaller2]
Kjanowic: what about multiple examples?
21:40:23 [SimonCox]
i.e. I would say would could use any SKOS annotation property without importing SKOS
21:40:31 [ScottSimmons]
I must leave the meeting, if things come down to close votes, SimonCox has my proxy
21:40:39 [phila]
+1 SimonCox
21:40:48 [ahaller2]
q?
21:40:53 [Kjanowic]
+1 SimonCox
21:41:18 [Kjanowic]
laurent_oz: [too much noise]
21:41:21 [ahaller2]
q?
21:41:46 [ahaller2]
q?
21:41:49 [SimonCox]
q+
21:41:59 [ahaller2]
q?
21:42:01 [kerry]
q+
21:42:53 [ahaller2]
ack SimonCox
21:42:53 [rtroncy2]
Raphael: yes, we could make multiple occurrences of skos:example but I would like to remind that they are just annotation properties and as such, there could be redundancy in the information.
21:43:03 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: the way you posed the issue was limited to only skos:example. If we talk about annotation properties, we have no problem anyway. We can use any of the skos annotation properties withou the need to import.
21:43:19 [ahaller2]
q?
21:43:20 [rtroncy2]
Raphael: I would therefore just use one occurrence of the property even if it gathers multiple examples in the literal
21:43:22 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:43:27 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: let us make this another agenda item
21:43:59 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: we should have multiple skos:example triples when needed
21:44:08 [ahaller2]
PROPOSE: use multiple skos:example annotation properties where necessary
21:44:19 [Kjanowic]
I am also in favor of multiple examples being possible
21:44:22 [roba]
+1 for all annotations : i think its consistency requirement - we need to follow the same pattern - so i think the vote implies the default position is we should treat all skos annotations the same way
21:44:26 [SimonCox]
+1
21:44:26 [ahaller2]
+1
21:44:29 [Kjanowic]
+1
21:44:30 [DanhLePhuoc]
+1
21:44:39 [rtroncy2]
0
21:44:39 [kerry]
+1
21:44:43 [laurent_oz]
+1 to multiple examples (but also keen on having other resources to learn from outside the ontology)
21:44:45 [ahaller2]
q?
21:44:49 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+1
21:44:58 [roba]
+1
21:45:03 [ahaller2]
q?
21:45:10 [ahaller2]
topic: O&M alignment options as of Simon's email in response to ACTION-255 (and proposal to invite Simon as editor to solve this and other issues)
21:45:12 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: let us move to O&M alignment
21:46:12 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: I did this on github but just posted the text in an email so that you can all look at it.
21:46:24 [ahaller2]
SimonCox: email to the list Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:36:29 +0000
21:46:46 [kerry]
q+ to coment on what an O&M alignment looks like
21:46:49 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: there is an officially endorsed version of how to convert from UML to URLs (by ISO)
21:47:23 [SimonCox]
https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011
21:47:58 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: my proposal is to use those URIs for the alignment
21:48:17 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: this enables us to express the alignment in a pretty compact way and not just text
21:48:28 [kerry]
simon, did you mean alignment from sos to ssn as you said?
21:48:35 [kerry]
s/sos/sosa/
21:48:53 [roba]
q+
21:49:02 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: the question really is whether the official ISO URIs are suitable to denote the UML classes and properties.
21:49:20 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: would this become normative or not.
21:49:36 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: om-lite could also be added as note
21:49:45 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:49:45 [Zakim]
kerry, you wanted to coment on what an O&M alignment looks like
21:49:50 [DanhLePhuoc]
+q
21:50:13 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox both SOSA and SSN
21:50:50 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: I get the URL idea but this is really ugly.
21:51:02 [ahaller2]
q?
21:51:29 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: Alternative is to use the OGC O&M specs and do any alignment to O&M by text
21:51:30 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:53:19 [kerry]
q+ to cjeck thatthose uris are resolvable
21:53:23 [DanhLePhuoc]
q-
21:53:28 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: the OWL you get from the automatic conversion is ugly but I am not suggesting that. I am focusing on the nice side effect of minting URLs and those are defined in a standard and are canonical.
21:53:37 [laurent_oz]
1: tried to derive graphics out of the ISO .ttl (result not very good) 2. am now looking at the published UML - found that here was also "implementation" packages in it 3. questions to Simon: are there plan to publish O&M in this branch of HMMG (this could be the best source to derive OWL from).
21:53:39 [ahaller2]
q?
21:53:43 [ahaller2]
ack roba
21:54:12 [laurent_oz]
Also: they are official URIs but very badly defined (need some tidying)
21:54:30 [Kjanowic]
Roba: the alignment is a separate document. It is my understanding that it does not effect SSN or SOSA axioms
21:54:35 [Kjanowic]
simoncox: no, same document
21:54:42 [ahaller2]
q?
21:54:48 [Kjanowic]
simoncox: but yes, this does not change sosa/ssn
21:54:51 [ahaller2]
ahaller2
21:55:09 [Kjanowic]
Roba: the intention is just to use the URIs?
21:55:10 [Kjanowic]
q+
21:55:14 [ahaller2]
ahaller2: it is not a vote yet on if it is normative or non-normative
21:55:17 [laurent_oz]
... e.g. when I say tidying, I mean tracking the official prefixes and removing the ones which have number at the end.
21:55:19 [Kjanowic]
simonCox: yes, that is the idea
21:55:26 [ahaller2]
q?
21:55:29 [laurent_oz]
q+
21:55:35 [Kjanowic]
Roba: last comment. Skos notations could be used here.
21:55:44 [mlefranc]
mlefranc has joined #sdwssn
21:56:08 [ahaller2]
q?
21:56:31 [Kjanowic]
Roba: SKOS notation not annotation.
21:56:46 [Kjanowic]
Roba: I am just saying that this is an option.
21:56:50 [SimonCox]
laurent_oz: don't intend to do anything with the prefixes. Use the official ISO URIs
21:56:59 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
21:57:54 [ahaller2]
ack kerry
21:57:54 [Zakim]
kerry, you wanted to cjeck thatthose uris are resolvable
21:58:04 [Kjanowic]
kjanowic: simon's proposal is to establish formal relations between the URIs and classes and properties in SOSA/SSN
21:58:28 [Kjanowic]
Kerry: These URIs are not resolvable.
21:58:53 [laurent_oz]
Simon, sometimes a nice prefix is used in some places and a different one is used elsewhere: my idea is to use the most recognisable one (so that in the future if we have a better OWL version it will use the same prefixes (likely) and so our work will not be lost.
21:59:05 [ahaller2]
Q?
21:59:08 [ahaller2]
ack laurent_oz
21:59:11 [Kjanowic]
kerry: fine with me but may be a problem for ssn
21:59:59 [Kjanowic]
laurent_oz: I tried to look into this and visualize it but that was not easy. Do we know what is on the horizon for O&M?
22:00:22 [Kjanowic]
SimonCox: this is a persistent standard in its own right.
22:00:46 [ahaller2]
kerry: was pointing out the non-resolving of URIs may be an issue for W3C, check with Phila
22:01:02 [Kjanowic]
q+
22:01:40 [Kjanowic]
laurent_oz: not all of them are easily readable URLs
22:01:47 [ahaller2]
URIs are restricted to https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011, is this correct, Simon?
22:02:01 [roba]
Agree with Simon regarding the appropriateness of the URI, and there is a bigger question about OGC/ISO definitions space- alignment with specref may provide a good solution here IMHO
22:02:21 [ahaller2]
q?
22:02:39 [Kjanowic]
q-
22:02:45 [ahaller2]
topic: Proposed time slots for extended phone conference mid-February
22:03:06 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: last topic for having longer meetings, e.g., some time in Feb.
22:03:18 [ahaller2]
ack Kjanowic
22:03:28 [Kjanowic]
Ahaller2: I will prepare a doodle.
22:04:01 [Kjanowic]
ahaller2: this is just about mappings, i.e., alignment. nothing more
22:04:03 [Kjanowic]
bye bye
22:04:07 [kerry]
bye!
22:04:07 [RaulGarciaCastro]
Bye
22:04:14 [DanhLePhuoc]
bye bye
22:04:52 [ahaller2]
RRSAgent, make logs public
22:05:00 [ahaller2]
RRSAgent, draft minutes \
22:05:00 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutes \', ahaller2. Try /msg RRSAgent help
22:05:02 [ahaller2]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:05:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/07-sdwssn-minutes.html ahaller2
22:06:30 [laurent_oz]
laurent_oz has left #sdwssn
22:36:54 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdwssn