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

[Minutes SSN] 2016 11 22

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:37:47 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a88ab95d-b6f6-63ad-7c47-81227dfda040@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's SSN meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Good to see forward motion!

           Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference

22 Nov 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-irc


           Armin, Haller, RaulGarciaCastro, SimonCox, kerry, roba,
           DanhLePhuoc, ClausStadler




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Last week minutes
          2. [5]F2F5
          3. [6]Annotations (labels, comments in SOSA, i.e. Issue
             [ISSUE 86
             pending comparison table prepared by Simon
          4. [7]Progress Report on SpecGen
          5. [8]Decision on removing someValues from restriction on
             hasSubSystem [ISSUE 85
          6. [9]observableProperty vs Property, i.e. [ISSUE 87
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

    <Phila> My apologies but I'm driving (I've pulled over to check
    meeting is working) so I can't join the call

    <SimonCox> I executed my action
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/221 and also
    added a note to the related issue
    [13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86 - see table
    here: [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/221
      [13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86
      [14] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

    <ahaller2> scribe: RaulGarciaCastro

    <ahaller2> Approving last meeting's minutes

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-sdwssn-minutes

Last week minutes

    <ahaller2> +1

    <kerry> +1

    Wasn’t there

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <ahaller2> patent call:

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

    <roba> +1 - note its missing my name as present

    ahaller2: Minutes approved

F2F5 [17]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F5

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F5

    kerry: For SSN we are planning both days (reviews agenda)
    ... … vote on the second day (but could change)
    ... … we can take also the Friday 9:00 slot
    ... … we should choose the issues to be discussed during the

    ahaller2: it seems that no one from the SSN group will be in

    kerry: if we think that we are not going to use some slot,
    better release it

    ahaller2: the 4 hours will be enough for us

    kerry: We should be prepared to put the issues in the document

Annotations (labels, comments in SOSA, i.e. Issue [ISSUE 86
[18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86], pending
comparison table prepared by Simon

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86],
      [19] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table

    <kerry> +1

    <ahaller2> +1 for simon!

    SimonCox: the table contains the class names and comments from
    4 main ontologies
    ... … SOSA, SSN, O&M and om-lite
    ... issue raised by Kerry: different comments in
    ... In the table I just focused on classes, not properties
    ... For Observation I’ve included the ssn and ssnx classes

    ahaller2: Let’s discuss FeatureOfInterest

    kerry: It would be nice if we have the table for properties
    ... … SSN recorded the provenance of term definitions; this
    should appear in the table to avoid losing the information
    ... … in the ontology (in annotation properties)

    <ahaller2> for featureOfInterest:

    <ahaller2> skos:exactMatch 'featureOfInterest' [O&M - ISO/DIS


      [20] http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=41579

    <ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: in the sosa core I have to
    understand what ObservableProperty is

    ahaller2: As an ontology engineer I understand the definition,
    from the web developer point of view it is understandable

    SimonCox: The definition of feature from the spatial community
    maybe is not useful for the web community

    <ahaller2> +1 to simon

    roba: Defining things is complex; in favour of the current
    ... But, should the commitment be in text or formalised?

    <SimonCox> 'feature' has too much baggage - lets make it a
    smaller target, specific to its role in observations.

    kerry: Don’t know the answer but let’s try to be consistent
    ... Feature is a horrible word, but the reuse of the OGC models
    was deliberate
    ... We could use another name, but using the same name and
    changing the definition is something I don’t like
    ... Why can’t we do multiple annotations/comments? E.g.,
    theoretical definition from O&M + a more convenient definition
    + examples embedded

    ahaller2: SOSA already has comment and examples in different
    annotations, we can follow this approach
    ... We changed Property to ObservableProperty to avoid
    misunderstandings in the web community
    ... everyone to take a look in the table and comment directly
    in the wiki
    ... in a different color if possible

    kerry: Renaming Property opens a whole can of worms

    ahaller2: Yes, that’s issue 87
    ... If we change annotations we may need to move them to SSN

Progress Report on SpecGen [21]https://github.com/specgen/specgen

      [21] https://github.com/specgen/specgen

    <kerry> kerry notes that she *did* receive the email about the
    table of comments -- and did manage to look at it beforehand
    --- thks Simon

    ahaller2: There are problems with hashes; other than that the
    tool does the trick (with manual fixing afterwards)
    ... … have not tried with other languages
    ... … I’ll try it with the whole SSN and let’s take a decision
    in next meeting

Decision on removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem
[ISSUE 85 [22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85]

      [22] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85]

    <ClausStadler> In regard to languages: I see that Sosa in the
    current state is inconsistent of using @en, ^^xsd:string and
    neither on the literals.

    kerry: the use of the existential restriction is redundant due
    to the universal restriction; Krzysztof sais that it affects
    reasoning efficiency

    s /Krzysztof sais that it affects reasoning
    efficiency/Krzysztof sais that removing the restriction affects
    reasoning efficiency/

    ahaller2: Anyone has experience in this so we can ask?

    kerry: Krzysztof said that he would check and come back

    s /sais/says/

observableProperty vs Property, i.e. [ISSUE 87

      [23] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87]

    <kerry> ACTION: Krzysztof to find out if existential
    restriction on hassubsystem casuses poor reasoning performance
    [recorded in

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Find out if existential
    restriction on hassubsystem casuses poor reasoning performance
    [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2016-11-29].

    ahaller2: The name was changed having in mind the web community
    ... … but the meaning is the same as in SSN

    kerry: Coming back to issue 86, we don’t need a feature in
    SOSA. It is only used to bind the type of the property. Is it
    not enough with the object property? Can we remove the
    FeatureOfInterest class?



    ahaller2: Maybe we need to split the issues

    <kerry> no

    <kerry> no

    ahaller2: No need to do so, it is not related to

    s /ahaller2: No need to do so/kerry: No need to do so/

    roba: In practice it is useful to have the concept for people
    to understand, so I’m not in favour of removal
    ... What is an observable property and how is it related to a
    Feature? Right now the relationship Feature-Property does not
    ... And differentiating the sample and the feature is also

    kerry: Still, having the properties is enough; having the class
    does not add much

    ahaller2: Can you change issue 87 and raise another one for the
    FeatureOfInterest class?
    ... … kerry?

    kerry: Sure

    ahaller2: Next week we have to decide who will write which part
    of the document
    ... Closing meeting

    <ahaller2> thanks, bye!

    <kerry> bye!


    <ClausStadler> bye!

    <ahaller2> type RRSAgent, draft minutes

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Krzysztof to find out if existential restriction
    on hassubsystem casuses poor reasoning performance [recorded in

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-sdwssn-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 06:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:27 UTC