- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:08:03 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's SSN sub group call are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes with a snapshot below.
This was a productive meeting that resolved many issues that have arisen
around here and there but that seem to have become compounded. All is
well and, modulo editorial changes now under way, the document will be
frozen by the end of the week and ready for publication as soon as the
WG can convene to approve it in the new year.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year everyone
Phil
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group SSN Sub Group Telco
20 Dec 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161220
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-irc
Attendees
Present
RaulGarciaCastro, SimonCox, ClausStadler, DanhLePhuoc,
Armin, Kerry, Laurent, ChrisLittle, laurent_oz
Regrets
Krzysztof
Chair
Armin
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Approving last meeting's minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
2. [6]Patent Call
3. [7]Approving pending change requests on WD document
and agree on frozen state for vote on 4th of January
4. [8]Going forward
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
Approving last meeting's minutes:
[11]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
[11] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<ClausStadler1> +1
<kerry_> +1
Patent Call
RESOLUTION: lAst meeting's minutes approved
[12]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
[12] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
Approving pending change requests on WD document and agree on frozen
state for vote on 4th of January
<SimonCox> SOrry - they are just testing the alarm - I'm still
here
ahaller2: In Friday's F2F we were supposed to vote on the WD
which we didn't manage. We agreed that Danh would approve pull
requests for the Ed Draft so that we can work towards a vote on
4 Jan
... We need to find a process. Perhaps creating a new branch
etc?
... But let's look at the remaining pull requests
<ahaller2> [13]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls
[13] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls
ahaller2: These are PRs. There was an e-mail from kerry saying
that she was still working on the alignmente section
formatting?
... But there is a PR lefty from Kerry, no. 473
<SimonCox> Should I repeat the pull request to swap the
sequence of the SSN/SOSA sections?
ahaller2: I've been looking at these, they look OK to me but
Danh, you're in charge
[NOTUC] to pulling into the merge PR 473
<SimonCox> @phila - nah, you are just sanding behind a curtain
ahaller2: So there are no remaining pull requests
SimonCox: On the process, when I looked at the SSN PRs, you had
to read the titles to detect those.
... It's probably helpful when creating a PR, prefix it with
'SSN'
ahaller2: That's a good idea
<ahaller2> +1 for SSN prefix in pull request
<RaulGarciaCastro> You can use labels
kerry_: I sent an e-mail late last night. You wanted me to do
the layout without spaces. I took another run at it as people
can't always maintain spaces when they edit docs (which I don't
agree with)
... I tried and failed, but if you'd like me to solve that
problem then I'm happy to take another go at it.
ahaller2: Sorry, that was too late for me to see.
... It's cut off a little in my browser. It's beyond the
bounding box of the div container
... we can fix it.
... I think it's enbough if we fix it for the next version. I'd
think it's OK as it is now.
SimonCox: First thing I want to do is to offer my apologies for
lack of understanding with GH and for the ensuing problem. All
to do with me working on OWL Time and it all got into the same
PR. Apologies.
... That said... the change that the PR made, I think most
people were happy with, which was swapping the order of the
SOSA and SSN chapters
... Is it appropriate to bring it up now
ahaller2: I discussed this with Kerry. My concern was not
around changing the order. Logically it makes sense. My concern
is that it's such a big diff - the diff doesn't track the
changes and just sees two new blocks
... I was suggesting that an editor made that change
... Personally, I'm happy with the change.
... I think Jano is too.
I'm happy to have it done. My only potential objection... it
should be done by an editor... but I'd like it done cleanly,
i.e. a standalone change.
<SimonCox> Can someone make a motion to do clean swap?
scribe: I'd have concerns if it got wrapped up in other things.
ahaller2: Can you make that change?
DanhLePhuoc: Yes, I'll do that and then assign it to you
laurent_oz: About SOSA and SSN order. I'm OK too, but my
general position, is that we should hide the division as much
as possible, but it's a step in the right direction.
ahaller2: What do you mean by hiding?
laurent_oz: Making the change not so prominent as it is now.
... Much more about blending the SOSA and SSN
... It could look too complicated if we're not careful
ahaller2: Are there any other changes?
... Are we ready to freeze?
PROPOSED: That the order of the SOSA and SSN chapters be
swapped
<kerry_> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<laurent_oz> +1
RESOLUTION: That the order of the SOSA and SSN chapters be
swapped
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
kerry_: Aggh!
<SimonCox> did the mouse eat her?
kerry_: Two other things. No fuss to be made.
... Backward compatibility with old SSN... not sure about what
I proposed about this
... I did something that I'm happy with but I'm not sure it's
enough.
... Also the change log, I wrote that. I'm not sure other
editors have recorded their changes there. That might need
looking at.
<ahaller2> [14]https://www.w3.org/ns/ssn-bc
[14] https://www.w3.org/ns/ssn-bc
ahaller2: The 1st comment that Kerry made, was that this URI
was used to make the alignment. But I think once these ...
phila: Didn't undertand the 1st point
kerry_: There are 2 new ontologies - 3 new ontologies with this
draft.
... The expectation is that W3C will upload them into the right
namespace, when the doc is published/
phila: You're asking for 3 namespaces
kerry_: There's SOSA, which is new in this doc
<ahaller2>
[15]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/
ssn.owl
[15]
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn.owl
<ahaller2>
[16]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
[16] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
<ahaller2>
[17]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/
ssn_equivalences.owl
[17]
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn_equivalences.owl
<ahaller2>
[18]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/
dul-alignment.owl
[18]
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl
kerry_: There's the old SSN alignment that is new in this
release
... added to this, I'm not sure that this is the right URI
<ahaller2> these are the ontology files that are used in the
document
<SimonCox> Do we actually need namespaces for alignments? Are
any new resources named??
phila: Would rather not over-use /ns space
... Can we use dated space
<ahaller2> +1 for a dated space for the alignments or use
/ssn/ssn-bc
kerry_: These are meant to be normative
phila: Don't care. Are they intended to be used for 30+ years?
kerry_: How about /ns/ssn/foo?
phila: Better
ahaller2: So it would be /ns/ssn/bc/
<laurent_oz> maybe ssn-ssnx?
kerry_: Notes that /ssn/dul is there already
<laurent_oz> sssn being the xg X for XG
<SimonCox> is it a namespace or is it a graph name?
<laurent_oz> and also potentially, we will have to change the
namespace for the old ssn to ssnx
SimonCox: On this issue..
... regarding these namespaces - are any new resources defined,
or is it a bunch of equivalent, sub classes etc?
... Because if it is just those, it's not so much a namespace
as much as anamed graph.
ahaller2: We just want to give the graph a name that is
different from SSN. I don't think any new terms are declared
... It's just to avoid people loading this into a triple store
and getting them confused
SimonCox: Hearing that, does that affect W3C's view?
... It sounds to be as if it should have ssn at the beginning
phila: How about /2017/01/ssn-alignment?
<laurent_oz> Tried to load all these ontologies into Protege
yesterday: need a owl:Ontology with a rdf:about finishing with
a different name (also we should start to revert to a dated URI
for the old SSN).
phila: I won't object/stand in the way, but it feels to me as
if you're looking at a transitional thing, then I prefer dated
space
kerry_: The doc itself will need to be changed to adapt to
that.
... I also liked Lauren't alternative name for the doc
... Changing from bc to...
ahaller2: So we have 2 proposals for ...
... for the alignment with the old namespace, we use the dated
space
laurent_oz: In Protege, the conflict is between the old and new
SSN
In Protege, you see the last make after the last slash
SimonCox: That's a tool problem
laurent_oz: Yes, but we know about it so perhaps we can avoid
it.
kerry_: It's painful, but I don't think there's a better
option.
... Neither imports the other. You put yourself in that
position if you want to.
SimonCox: You may have noticed that I've been working on an
alignment with SOSA and O&M
... I hadn't gone as far as imagining the w3 URI to be used for
that
... The lists and lists of alignment axioms - will we see those
in the end or will we be referring out to an RDF alignment
graph?
<Zakim> kerry_, you wanted to comment on the previous topic to
conside the name laurent proposed for ssn-bc and to remind on
changes section
kerry_: We discussed that last week. There were suggestions
made - not able to do it before now.
... I'll certainly havea another go.
SimonCox: So should I do something similar for O&M alignment in
a future release?
ahaller2: I think kerry_ you were adressing he formatting
preoblem?
kerry_: No...
ahaller2: Do we want the alignment in the file as they appear
now?
SimonCox: It's just an alignment of all the axioms?
ahaller2: We need a formal semantics section
<laurent_oz> And a figure!
SimonCox: I remember some discussion about the formal semantics
laurent_oz: That's what we'll need to discuss.
<scribe> ACTION: laurent to prepare a graphical representation
of the alignment [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Prepare a graphical
representation of the alignment [on Laurent Lefort - due
2016-12-27].
SimonCox: That shoud be a plural?
laurent_oz: Yes.
ahaller2: So we have a proposal to change the alignment
namespace URI to a dated space
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Dated URI for the SSN-SSSNX alignment and
change name to SSN-SSSNX
<laurent_oz> 2 s
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Dated URI for the SSN-SSSNX alignment and
change name to SSN-SSNX
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Dated URI for the SSN-SSNX alignment and
change name to SSN-SSNX
<kerry_> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<laurent_oz> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
kerry_: Noting that that requires changes in the doc before
publication
ahaller2: You can only do that after DanhLePhuoc has swapped
SOSA and SSN sections
DanhLePhuoc: I'm doing it now
... So give it a few hours
ahaller2: I'll look at it right after the meeting
<SimonCox> ANd don't forget
[20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table !
[20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
RESOLUTION: Dated URI for the SSN-SSNX alignment and change
name to SSN-SSNX
<ahaller2> The namespace for SSN terms is
[21]http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
[21] http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
<ahaller2> The suggested prefix for the SSN namespace is ssn
<ahaller2> The SSN ontology itself is available here.
ahaller2: We need something similar at the beginning of the
SOAS section. Simon mentioned it a while back.
... I propose making that cnage in the doc
laurent_oz: In terms of reaching to the user, showing them
these namespaces. It makes sense to have the O&M alignment
prominent
ahaller2: So the alignment with O&M should be more prominent
than with SOSA
laurent_oz: (off mike)
ahaller2: Can that be in the next version, not this version
<laurent_oz> Phil asks if everything can go in a single graph
name.
<SimonCox> PROPOSED: Insert a NS block at top of SOSA section
[No, we need separate graph names]
<SimonCox> +1
<kerry_> +1
ahaller2: Do we all agree?
<ahaller2> +1
<laurent_oz> +1
<roba> +1
RESOLUTION: Insert a NS block at top of SOSA section
ahaller2: That change to be made after the SOSA and SSN section
order swap
kerry_: The changes section...
... It's good enough but it's not that good. Can it be
improved?
ahaller2: From what we proposed omn Monday evening, I think
we've only made editorial changes. Are there other changes that
need to be highlighted. There were som esignificant changes
... There are 2 new chapters which aren't mentioned. The
vertical integration isn't in the change log
SimonCox: Adding sections is more than just editorial, I agree
ahaller2: Are you volunteering to made those additions, Kerry?
... Talks about changes before and after the freeze
<laurent_oz> Phil The change log have to reflect the changes
between the published versions
phila: Points out that change log needs to reflect changes
between previous and this published version.
kerry_: I did it for the changes I was aware of, which I'm not
sure is all of them.
SimonCox: I'll review that if you have a go Armin.
... But I don't feel able to make actual changes
ahaller2: If you have a couple of spare minutes in the morning
SimonCox: I'll do it right after the end of this call, but
after the current PRs have been accepted.
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Adding changes to change history in
document in section B
<ahaller2> +1
<SimonCox> +1 - I will work on it this afternoon
<kerry_> +1
<laurent_oz> +1 - Simon can you cc me with your original list
of changes (to help me to catch up)?
+1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
phila: (it's essential)
RESOLUTION: Adding changes to change history in document in
section B
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
ahaller2: So can we freeze the doc after these changes, no more
after that
<kerry_> +1 subject to consistency /typo check
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Freeze document after approved proposed
changes from this meeting are made
<roba> +0
<SimonCox> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<kerry_> +1 subject to consiusteny/typo check
RESOLUTION: Freeze document after approved proposed changes
from this meeting are made
<laurent_oz> +1
Going forward
ahaller2: We'll have to take this topic on the mailing list as
we're out of time
... We may want to open a new doc or a new branch
<laurent_oz> * Simon, I'll need the O&M ontology you want to
align with (if not available)
ahaller2: AOB? If not, we have a frozen doc before Christmas
<SimonCox> Thanks for very productive meeting all.
<SimonCox> Happy Holidays
SimonCox: I was just reminding people that the diagram existed
which might be helpful
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye! Enjoy these days!
[Adjourned]
phila: Use [22]http://www.w3.org/2017/01/ssn-ssnx
[22] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/ssn-ssnx
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: laurent to prepare a graphical representation of
the alignment [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]lAst meeting's minutes approved
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes
2. [25]That the order of the SOSA and SSN chapters be swapped
3. [26]Dated URI for the SSN-SSNX alignment and change name to
SSN-SSNX
4. [27]Insert a NS block at top of SOSA section
5. [28]Adding changes to change history in document in section
B
6. [29]Freeze document after approved proposed changes from
this meeting are made
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 22:08:17 UTC