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

[Minutes-SSN] 2016-03-08

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:05:02 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56E049AE.3070009@w3.org>
The minutes of the first SSN sub group call are at

With a text snapshot below...

                            SDW SSN Sub Group

08 Mar 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/08-sdwssn-irc


           Kerry, RaulGarciaCastro, DanhLePhuoc, ahaller2

           Oscar, Scott


           DanhLePhuoc, RaulGarciaCastro


      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Patent call
          2. [5]Welcome to SSN-subgroup meetings
          3. [6]FPWD
          4. [7]Webprotege
          5. [8]Editor’s draft
          6. [9]Modularization
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

    <kerry> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this

    <kerry> trackbot, this will be sdw

    <trackbot> Sorry, kerry, I don't understand 'trackbot, this
    will be sdw'. Please refer to
    <[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

    <kerry> scribe: DanhLePhuoc

    <kerry> scribeNick: RaulGarciaCastro

    <kerry> scribe: RaulGarciaCastro

Patent call

    <kerry> [13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

Welcome to SSN-subgroup meetings

    kerry: Not many people around


    kerry: We need to publish the FPWD soon
    ... … end of March, 1st week April
    ... … that is our first big goal
    ... … we could publish SSN as it is now
    ... … being ambitious, also modularization would be good
    ... … it is important that the W3C staff sees some progress

    RaulGarciaCastro: It would be nice to also include in the FPWD
    what we plan to deliver by the end of our work

    <kerry> +1

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1


    kerry: We can talk about this next meeting (with more people)
    ... … with the other editors




    kerry: People should have rights to edit the ontology

    DanhLePhuoc: Not everyone needs to have editing permissions to

    RaulGarciaCastro: If we modularise the ontology at the end we
    will have different projects

    kerry: Yes, I think it was that way

    DanhLePhuoc: Right now there are two projects, not sure how to
    link them

    kerry: Where are the axioms in Webprotege?


      [15] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/WebProtegeUsersGuide

    DanhLePhuoc: In the OWLEntityDescriptionBrowser tab



    DanhLePhuoc: … and Editor

    <kerry> please look at user guid and have a go

    <ahaller2> apologies for being late, what is the webex link?

    <kerry> Armin, can pls give raul permission to edit on


      [17] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20160308



    <ahaller2> yes, what is his username?

    <kerry> armin, the webex link on that page works



    that’s my user name in Webprotege

Editor’s draft

    <kerry> [19]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

      [19] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

    kerry: ahaller2 already has editing permissions in github


    ahaller2: We have agreed to remove dolce
    ... … do we need further modules?

    <kerry> agree -- no precedent for this

    ahaller2: … will splitting the ontology make it more usable?

    <kerry> also agree -- it is no that much

    kerry: multiple namespaces is annoying and you have to
    constantly look for things you need in other places

    RaulGarciaCastro: we could analyse the use cases and see what
    extent of the ontology is expected to be used

    ahaller2: All modules, even if they have different namespaces,
    could be in the same file

    DanhLePhuoc: it’s not necessary to split everything but we can
    have different profiles

    kerry: some use cases deal with observations, others with
    ... … we could do some profiling
    ... … we can put the current modules in the W3C namespace

    RaulGarciaCastro: Once we define some URIs, people will start
    using them

    ahaller2: I’m concerned of publishing something not finished


    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    RaulGarciaCastro: Putting the modules proposal in the FPWD
    would make no harm
    ... … and if everyone agrees we publish it
    ... … and if there are concerns we wait

    kerry: not just the modules, the complete modules
    ... the ontologies themselves

    DanhLePhuoc: Like in software, people could use profiles and
    look for the origin of the different ontology components

    I’m not sure I got well this last part

    kerry: People could simply use the vocabulary terms of the
    ontology, but it would be nice if reasoning can also be used
    ... dereferencing the ontology terms should lead to the
    ... … we can test this with the current splitted version of the
    ... … and implementing content negotiation

    ahaller2: It would be nice to have it to play
    ... … multiple modules will also lead people to use incorrect

    kerry: We can do that and then discuss up to what extent

    <kerry> ACTION: ahaller2 to get the 2 ontology modules on w3c
    namespace with phila, to experimentation [recorded in

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/08-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this

    kerry: if anyone wants to chair these meetings, just tell
    ... … will be happy if people gives suggestions on topics for
    the meeting


    <kerry> rrsagent. draft minutes

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: ahaller2 to get the 2 ontology modules on w3c
    namespace with phila, to experimentation [recorded in

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/08-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 16:04:53 UTC

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