- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:13:17 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's SSN Sub Group call are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes with a text snapshot below.
Thanks to Joel for scribing.
SDW WG, SSN Sub Group Telecon
23 Aug 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-irc
Attendees
Present
ClausStadler, JRamsay, DanhLePhuoc, SimonCox, kerry,
ScottSimmons, frans, ahaller2, SefkiKolozali_UniS,
phila, ChrisLittle
Regrets
Chair
kerry
Scribe
Joel Ramsay
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]approve minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
2. [5]UCR -- action-111 see
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/201
6Aug/0084.html
3. [6]SSN: Issue tracking and public discussion (PhilA?)
4. [7]UCR - reviewing for SSN requirements issue-73 and
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05
(Kerry)
* [8]Summary of Action Items
* [9]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kerry> scribe: Joel Ramsay
<kerry> scribenick: JRamsay
approve minutes [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
[10] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
<kerry> +1
<SimonCox> 1
<SimonCox> +1
+1
<ClausStadler> +1
<ahaller2> +1
RESOLUTION: approve minutes
[11]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
[11] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
<kerry> patent call:
[12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
UCR -- action-111 see
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0084.h
tml
[13]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0084.html
<kerry> topic : UCR -- action-111 see
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/
0084.html (Frans?)
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0084.html
<frans> ACTION: 111 to
[15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111 [recorded
in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111
[16] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding '111'. You can review and register
nicknames at <[17]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<kerry> ?action-111
<frans>
[18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Vari
ous_Sensor_Use_Cases_.28SSN.29
[18]
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
[19]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05 (Kerry)
[19] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05
<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> [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73
[20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73
UCR - reviewing for SSN requirements issue-73 and
[21]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05 (Kerry)
[21] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes#item05
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:
[22]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html
[22] 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
[23]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02]
[23] 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
<[24]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/74/edit>.
[24] 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
[25]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/
0070.html
[25]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0070.html
<kerry> Web of Things: meet at Lisbon, possibly
[26]https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/SessionIdeas
[26] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/SessionIdeas
<ChrisLittle> Bye
<frans> Good night or day!
<SimonCox> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: 111 to
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: roba to review UCR doc from an SSN viewpoint --
is it complete and correct? [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01
[28] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes.html#action02
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]approve minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-sdwssn-minutes
2. [30]ucr doc to incorp requirement for actuation
3. [31]Frans to include appropriate use case on (1) above
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 22:10:40 UTC