W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2016

[Minutes-SSN] 2016-08-23

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>
Message-ID: <2d40334b-6960-f214-0d20-e678c9587164@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> editorĀ“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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:26 UTC