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

[minutes] 2016-02-24

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:34:28 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56D7F714.7080905@w3.org>
Due to travel last week I didn't post last week's minutes. They are, of 
course, at https://www.w3.org/2016/02/24-sdw-minutes.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

24 Feb 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/24-sdw-irc


           kerry, ScottSimmons, ahaller2, robin, eparsons,
           SimonCox, LarsG, aharth, RaulGarciaCastro, ChrisLittle,
           ClausStadler, Linda, jtandy, MattPerry, billroberts,
           AndreaPerego, DanhLePhuoc

           Clemens, Jon_Blower, Rachel, Frans, payam, josh, jon,
           krzysztof, phila




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]patent call
          2. [5]Plan for meetings permitting parallel work
          3. [6]Temporal Issues Time Issues and Notes
          4. [7]SSN: progress report and IoT-lite [1]

      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions

    i can volunteer

    <SimonCox> onya Armin

    <kerry> scribe: ahaller2

    <kerry> scribeNick ahaller2

    <ScottSimmons> +1 to Jeremy's idea

    <billroberts> sorry I'm a bit late

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to bumping nonIRC

    <kerry> propose: approve last weeks minutes

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes.html

    <Linda> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <SimonCox> 1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <robin> +1

    <jtandy> s/apprive/APPROVE/

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    RESOLUTION: approve minutes

    <LarsG> +0 (wasn't there)

patent call [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

    <ClausStadler> +0 (unfortunately missed it as well)

Plan for meetings permitting parallel work

    kerry: separate meetings for subgroups, time, ssn, potentially
    best practises
    ... proposal, subgroup meetings at the same time as currently,
    every other week

    eparsons: at F2F we agreed to have the subgroups have a meeting
    at a time of their choosing, and every other week we have the
    meeting at large

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that we were trying to
    deconflict participating in multiple activities

    ChrisLittle: agree to ed, leave people some flexibility to
    chose a time

    <SimonCox> for me: time & ssn

    <kerry> who want to be here for BP meetings?

    <jtandy> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <ClausStadler> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +0

    <robin> +1

    <kerry> who wants to attend time meetings?

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <Linda> -1

    <jtandy> -1

    <eparsons> +0

    <aharth> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <kerry> +0

    <AndreaPerego> +0

    <SimonCox> Simon sticks his tongue out at Jeremy

    <robin> +0

    <ClausStadler> +0

    <billroberts> +0

    <MattPerry> +0

    <ScottSimmons> +0.5

    <jtandy> +1

    <jtandy> reevaluate: +0

    <kerry> who wants to attend ssn?

    <Linda> +0

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1


    <LarsG> +0

    <ChrisLittle> +0

    <robin> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ClausStadler> +1

    <SimonCox> +0.5

    <jtandy> +0.1

    <billroberts> +0

    <MattPerry> +0

    <eparsons> -1

    <ScottSimmons> +0

    <billroberts> who wants to be in coverages

    <eparsons> +1

    <aharth> coverage

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <Linda> +0

    <eparsons> +1

    <billroberts> +1 (again)

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <MattPerry> +0

    <robin> +1

    <kerry> +1!

    <LarsG> +0

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +0.5

    <ClausStadler> +0

    <billroberts> I can work it out from this list, thanks

    <SimonCox> (is Jon Blower on the coverage list?)

    <ChrisLittle> * Simon - will work on Jon B

    jtandy: meeting with the data on the web people was scheduled
    for next week

    eparsons: intention was to have more meetings, not less, thus
    we should keep the one next week

    <billroberts> @SimonCox I'll assume Jon Blower is interested
    and include him in meeting time consultation

    <ChrisLittle> @billroberts good idea

    kerry: next week a full meeting at this time slot, with data on
    the web, after that we start with every alternate week

    <jtandy> [so we need to set up the multiple meetings for w/c

    eparsons: requirement for the editors of these subgroup
    meetings to inform the list and to keep the wiki updated with
    the agenda at least 24h before the meeting

    <RaulGarciaCastro> Also with approval of minutes and patent
    call and so on?

    kerry: yes, it should include minutes and patent call
    ... should be in the same irc channel, i.e. #sdw

    <ChrisLittle> @SimonCox let us start sooner rather than later

Temporal Issues Time Issues and Notes

    <SimonCox> About time!


      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_Issues_and_Notes

    ChrisLittle: commented on his notes, and that these notes
    should be discussed in the time working group

    SimonCox: we have this nailed already ;-)

    <kerry> +1

    ChrisLittle: homework would be to make these notes in the
    current owl time document

    jtandy: point simon to existing vocabs such as dcat and
    datacube that turn on/off ttl syntax/rdf syntax

    aharth: question regarding predicates that compare time. Are
    they still in scope?

    <kerry> +q

    <jtandy> [and that the examples in those vocabs are provided in

    SimonCox: no reason to interfere with that part

    aharth: if you get imprecise with time, how do you do the
    comparison operators

    SimonCox: comparison operator result will be undefined in
    certain circumstances

    <kerry> +1 to simon

    kerry: there is a strong user base of time, thus we would have
    to have a very strong reason to change or remove current

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon

    SimonCox: fully aware of that and have this as a principle

SSN: progress report and IoT-lite [1]

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

    ahaller2: regarding webprotege and upload of ssn parts to
    webprotege, I received the namespace only 3 days ago, and did
    not have time yet to upload it. will do until next meeting



    <kerry> [14]https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/03/Comment/

      [14] https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/03/Comment/

    kerry: team comment was that this group should publish it as a
    note of the ssn work

    <SimonCox> How does iot-lite interact with ssn 'skeleton'?

    kerry: this was done together with the web of things interest

    <SimonCox> There was some discussion on list about factoring
    the SSN ontology, different principles that might be used.

    ScottSimmons: this comes a bit cold

    <SimonCox> OGC separates details into Observations vs

    ahaller2: also wonder how this interacts with the skeleton?

    <SimonCox> To allow different specialization choices in each.

    <ScottSimmons> I'll just note that the submission has multiple
    places to enter the OGC process, we will just need to mutually
    agree on the best place

    kerry: broadly it looks like ssn with some extensions
    ... has built into it the units ontology

    <SimonCox> If skeleton classes are stubs, then that makes
    extensibility easier.

    <SimonCox> qu-taxo is unavailable now! 404!

    kerry: deals with actuations, in a very light way
    ... has a notation of coverage, very simple geometric
    description that the device represents

    <SimonCox> QUDT is OK ... but v2.0 is now about 3 years
    overdue, and only rolling out in a rather punctuated fashion.

    <SimonCox> ssn 'skeleton'

    <SimonCox> so where are the observation results (values) found
    in iot-lite?

    kerry: it is my believe that the observation part can be used
    in the ssn

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to wonder if this, or something
    similar, could be used as example around sensor data eg river
    flow gauge

    jtandy: some things we do around the emergency response
    example, we are keen to include sensor apis from the OGC and
    also stuff from this ontology

    kerry: i think for that use case you should be looking at the
    full SSN ontology

    jtandy: adoption rate of sensor api in OGC is still minimal?

    ScottSimmons: yes, it is still in research stage use
    ... some github players, but not yet wide adoption

    SimonCox: What is the relation with ssn skeleton and where is
    the value in the observation?

    kerry: it has not been aligned to SSN yet.

    SimonCox: It is somehow a parallel work to SSN?

    kerry: kind of, this should have a strong mapping to SSN,
    ... this is a metadata description and the value is delivered
    through an API attached to the service
    ... this is appropriate in IoT world

    <SimonCox> SSN skeleton should provide high level view of how
    the moving parts are related to each other, without going into
    detail about 'content' of any of the classes.

    <Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to ask how does iot-lite relate to
    ssn skeleton? and to ask where are the observation results
    (values) found in iot-lite?

    <SimonCox> (Sorry - still haven't got the hang of zakim, so was
    a bit repetitive here).

    kerry: editors, please get in touch with people who want to
    participate in the subgroup

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

    <RaulGarciaCastro> bye

    <billroberts> thanks all - bye

    <eparsons> bye !!


    <kerry> bye!

    <ChrisLittle> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [15]approve minutes

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 08:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:20 UTC