- 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>
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
Attendees
Present
Armin, Haller, RaulGarciaCastro, SimonCox, kerry, roba,
DanhLePhuoc, ClausStadler
Regrets
Chair
Armin
Scribe
RaulGarciaCastro
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Last week minutes
2. [5]F2F5
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F5
3. [6]Annotations (labels, comments in SOSA, i.e. Issue
[ISSUE 86
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86],
pending comparison table prepared by Simon
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
4. [7]Progress Report on SpecGen
https://github.com/specgen/specgen
5. [8]Decision on removing someValues from restriction on
hasSubSystem [ISSUE 85
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85]
6. [9]observableProperty vs Property, i.e. [ISSUE 87
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/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
[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
[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
meeting
ahaller2: it seems that no one from the SSN group will be in
person
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
[19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
[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
FeatureOfInterest
... 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
19156]
<ahaller2>
[20]http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=41579
[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
definition
... 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]
[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]
[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>
[25]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/sosa-core-over
view.pdf
[25]
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/sosa-core-overview.pdf
ahaller2: Maybe we need to split the issues
<kerry> no
<kerry> no
ahaller2: No need to do so, it is not related to
ObservableProperty
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
appear
... And differentiating the sample and the feature is also
useful
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!
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]
[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