[Minutes] 2017 04 05 & call to action

The minutes of this week's plenary are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdw-minutes with a snapshot below. Thanks 
to Payam for scribing.

A difficult meeting concerning SSN with the outcome (my summary) of:

- The SSN sub group gives the appearance of not having reached 
consensus. Therefore, my belief is that it would be better, now, to 
recognise that the work will, at best, be published as a Note (possibly 
2 Notes).

- The SSN Sub Group believes they are working through the open issues 
rapidly with most participants agreeing on resolutions most of the time. 
Therefore, they ask for a reconsideration on April 17th.

Meanwhile...

Simon in particular has put in a great deal of work on OWL Time with all 
but one issue now closed. The one is under review with a specific 
proposal from Simon.

The document looks less finished than it actually is, but this will 
change during the day tomorrow (hopefully). The doc has already been 
reviewed by the Internationalisation group. We don't believe close 
review is required by the other horizontal groups (accessibility, 
security and privacy). But, what *is* required is review by others.

*Therefore* all WG members are asked to make an effort to get eyes on 
the doc ASAP - and to record the effort you made (whether it's effective 
or not). in the wiki at https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review

(I just set this up).

Minutes snapshot below.



           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

05 April 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170405
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ahaller2, ChrisLittle, ChrisLittle_, DanhLePhuoc,
           eparsons, Francois, kerry, KJanowic, MattPerry, Payam,
           phila, RaulGarciaCastro, SimonCox

    Regrets
           Andrea, Byron, Jeremy, Josh, Linda, Scott

    Chair
           Ed

    Scribe
           payam

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Patent Call
          2. [6]Approve last week's minutes
          3. [7]SSN Deliverables & timeframes
          4. [8]Time ontology
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Patent Call

    Patent call

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

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

Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [12]https://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-sdw-minutes

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-sdw-minutes

    <kerry> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +0 WAS NOT THERE

    <phila> This was day 1 of the F2F

    +) wasn't there

    <KJanowic> 0

    <phila> (wasn't present

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +0 (not there)

    <MattPerry> +0

    <eparsons> [13]https://www.w3.org/2017/03/21-sdw-minutes

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/21-sdw-minutes

    <kerry> +1

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <KJanowic> 0

    <ahaller2> +1

    +0 - wasn't there

    <ChrisLittle> +0 not there too

    <eparsons> +1

    <phila> +1

    Resolved: Approve last week's minutes

SSN Deliverables & timeframes

    phila: discusses the recent SSN meeting and the current emails
    (regarding the naming)

    phila: in Delft we agreed to have 2 separate names and there
    will be a common base name

    phila: there were lots of discussions in Delft about the naming

    phila: there recent complaints aren't been agreed with.

    phila: we seem not to have a consensus in this part of the work

    <KJanowic> Phil, can I briefly jump in here.

    phila: that this work (SSN) might become a note in the end.

    <phila> [14]Discover API

      [14] https://www.w3.org/TR/discovery-api/

    phila: this is an example of document that the group didn't
    come an agreement

    KJanowic: discusses the current emails and issues;

    KJanowic: asks for more time to come to an agreement; feels
    there have been lots of improvements

    KJanowic: we can work this out; we can have a good draft by the
    17th. Let's wait until the 17th.

    KJanowic: it's not as bad as it seems

    ahaller2: is commenting on the naming issue

    <KJanowic> Yes, naming will not sink this. Those that disagreed
    still offered alternative options.

    ahaller2: this is a very small issue in the end. Armin
    acknowledges that there was an agreement initially during the
    f2f meeting

    ahaller2: feels that the groups is working swiftly to address
    the issues; if we have the chance to work on the SSN document
    for 2 more weeks, the issues will be resolved

    <KJanowic> Can I add one more comment?

    eparsons: acknowledge the huge amount of work that has been
    dedicated to the SSN work

    eparsons: naming is a serious issue and consensus seems to be a
    problem.

    eparsons: resolving these issues seem to a big task; maybe a
    note could be good choice

    KJanowic: suggests referring to the [previous] meeting minutes

    KJanowic: is discussing the voting process and the agreement
    process

    KJanowic: the naming issues requires some compromise and
    suggests to continue the work until the 17th; this can be done
    successfully

    KJanowic: let's give it one more chance

    kerry: agrees that most of the meetings are productive

    <KJanowic> Kerry, you are part of the group. Please join us
    instead of fighting the rest of us constantly!

    kerry: when she read the minutes, an issue that she had raised
    was discussed when she wasn't around and voted and agreed while
    she had a different view on the matter

    <KJanowic> How can you say that we have almost nothing?

    kerry: feels resolving the issues in the remaining time is not
    realistic

    KJanowic: feels differently; KJanowic feels the group is almost
    ready

    <phila> Payam: As an external observer, I read the emails my
    feeling is that there is no consensus.

    <phila> ... What Phil says, W3C/OGC are about consensus

    <KJanowic> Armin, can you speak up to this?

    <SimonCox> Sorry I'm very very late

    ahaller2: commenting on Payam's comments: people have different
    opinions

    <SimonCox> I hear that. I can't contribute yet as I don't know
    state of conversation.

    ahaller2: refers to the meeting that kerry couldn't join and
    there was a vote (it wasn't on purpose)

    kerry: didn't mean that it was deliberate

    <KJanowic> Simon?

    ahaller2: feels given more time the group can progress

    <SimonCox> Sorry - I was trying to speak but clearly my mike is
    not working :-(

    phila: is aware that this work seems to be close to be
    [virtually] stopped

    <kerry> q

    <kerry> q

    phila: acknowledges that the SSN work is superb

    phila: this could become 2 separate "note"s

    phila: we are here to help run the process

    phila: is talking about the status of the time ontology;

    phila: regarding the ssn we should consider what is best for
    the group

    SimonCox: agrees with phila's assessment of the current status
    of the ssn

    SimonCox: feels there is a significant collaborative work in
    ssn (50% of the group) and some part of the group seem to be
    passive and another part has not considered the progress until
    it became too late

    eparsons: would like to hear from the ssn group, what would be
    a realistic proposal?

    KJanowic: is there any chance to get 2 more weeks? KJanowic
    wants to give it another try

    phila: it is not only 2 more weeks; it needs implementation and
    ...

    <KJanowic> Yes, why don't we wait until the 17th.

    <SimonCox> In response to Ed: my judgement is that consensus is
    now less of a problem than the sheer workload in front of us -
    I think phila jus said this too

    <KJanowic> I fully understand and am fine with whatever
    decision you take but have to leave now.

    <KJanowic> Thanks Ed and Phil, appreciate your feedback

    eparsons: if the ssn group feel they want to push towards the
    17th deadline, they won't be stopped. it's your call...

    phila: is discussing the email issues

    ahaller2: will try to speak offline ad make a decision

    <roba> time zone fail - sorry

Time ontology

    SimonCox: the time ontology is mainly done by one person.

    SimonCox: this is a re-documentation and providing a formal
    specification

    SimonCox: some additional proposals have also been made

    SimonCox: has worked on the implementation- SimonCox thinks
    they can show 2 separate implementation and lots of evidence of
    using the time ontology in other ontologies

    SimonCox: if the evidence of use is that the time ontology
    being used in other ontologies then there are sufficient
    evidence

    SimonCox: this document requires more examples

    SimonCox: believes by the next meeting, the document will be
    presentable

    ChrisLittle_: has been reading and reviewing the documents -
    agrees with SimonCox

    ChrisLittle_: has a version with too many examples

    ChrisLittle_: is discussing a public comment that they have had

    phila: the next stage will be a recommendation

    phila: this will require evidence of a wider view

    phila: we should show evidence that we have asked other people
    to review this

    phila: are there any new terms that will be difficult to find
    evidence of use?

    SimonCox: there will be around 5 new terms (out of 30?)

    phila: this could pose a risk

    phila: you need to collect and show the evidence that you have
    asked other people to review and look at this document

    phila: this should be done very soon

    <Zakim> tidoust, you wanted to wonder whether we could start
    horizontal reviews right away

    tidoust: changes that time ontology team require.../document
    seems ready enough for wide review. What bugs me is the
    presence of issue notes that link to closed issues, but apart
    from that, there's just one pending PR. Let's reach out! If we
    don't need to ask accessibility, privacy, security.../changes
    that time ontology team require...

    tidoust: who do we need to ask?

    phila: OGC, relevant groups... and record your evidence and
    efforts

    SimonCox: is asking the rest of the group to help with this

    ChrisLittle_: OGC has a group and he will circulate the
    document to them.

    eparsons: we need to do this now..

    thanks tidoust

    eparsons: any other comments?

    <ahaller2> thanks,bye

    <RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

    <ChrisLittle_> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [15]Approve last week's minutes

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 21:23:42 UTC