[Minutes] 2017 04 19

The minutes of today's plenary meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Two key decisions:
- That OWL Time is ready for Candidate Rec;
- That SSN is ready for wide review (what we used to call Last Call)

Huge thanks were expressed to the editors of thee documents who have 
been working extremely hard in recent weeks.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

19 April 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170419
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-sdw-irc


           ahaller2, billroberts, DanhLePhuoc, eparsons, KJanowic,
           MattPerry, mlefranc, Payam, phila, RaulGarciaCastro,
           roba, SimonCox

           Andrea, Jeremy, Linda, Scott




      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Approve last week's minutes
          2. [6]Patent Call
          3. [7]Time Ontology
          4. [8]SSN
          5. [9]Wrap up
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Approve last week's minutes

    eparsons: Full agenda, focused on the two docs

    <eparsons> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170405

    <ahaller2> +1

    <KJanowic> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <Payam> +1

    [13]Last call minutes



    Resolved: Approve last week's minutes

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

Patent Call

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <eparsons> [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

Time Ontology

    <eparsons> [15]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/

    eparsons: Invites Simon to talk through it

    <SimonCox> [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/3

      [16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/3

    SimonCox: There are 3 open issues
    … These relate to comments received from MSMcQ
    … Comments registered in 2007 on the original version.

    SimonCox: I dealt with almost all the comments last Thursday,
    leaving 3 for Chris to handle
    … Seem to just need words around them, won't have any impact on
    the ontology
    … I've not full finished liasising with Chris, but I don't
    think that should hold us up

    SimonCox: Relative to versions you'll have seen before... I've
    done some rewriting of section 1, removing the issue
    … At the bottom, the examples section, I've added 5-7, 5-8 and
    … 5-7 was requested by a couple of people, aligning a cople of
    other ontologies wwith OWL Time
    … 5-8 came from an Andrea who noted that DCAT made reference to
    OWL Time so I reflected that.
    … 5-9 there's an incomplete list of external uses of OWL Time

    SimonCox: I'm looking at other ontologies that import or just
    use OWL Time
    … One document bug, there are 2 separate reference lists. One
    is managed by hand
    … I planned to transfer those to the ReSpec config
    … Will need some help from W3C to solve that

    SimonCox: Want to add more to section 1 and then 5.9
    … My judgement is that the doc is ready for the next stage

    <eparsons> phila next stage candidate recommendation

    <eparsons> phila CR means group is ready, wide review is
    complete.. seen evidence of this via email

    <eparsons> phila Thanks to SimonCox great work...

    <ahaller2> +1 for SimonCox' work on Time!

    <KJanowic> Same here!

    <eparsons> phila minor changes but these need to be done before
    CR, comments will need to be documented to director (table on

    <eparsons> phila comments disposition teleco with director
    formal step

    <eparsons> SimonCox Can do section 1 today, need help with

    <eparsons> SimonCox 5.9 replace with link

    <eparsons> phila Implementation report location is up to you..

    <eparsons> SimonCox Have email trails recorded just need to
    pull them out

    <eparsons> SimonCox chris has three issues to work, first is
    intro text...

    <eparsons> SimonCox Leap seconds is a Chris issue

    <eparsons> phila Chris needs to record responses to issues &
    add to depostion

    <eparsons> SimonCox 158 I will deal withm chris 161 and 163

    eparsons: On process... wew haven't had the equivalent of
    published WDs in the way we have with other docs
    … We'll need to prove that we have socialised, had enough eyes
    on it
    … It's been almost entirely your work, Simon - and I agree that
    your work has been exemplary
    … But wedo need to show that it's not just Simon working in a
    dark room
    … How do we show that it's been reviewed?
    … I sense that might be a weakness for us

    <KJanowic> Can we solicit some of us that take another turn at
    the document with a track change of this on github?

    <eparsons> phila Disposition will include evidence of bringing
    this work to broader attention

    <eparsons> phila comments from 9 years ago is incredible !!

    eparsons: I want to be sure that we can defend the document
    … It's unfortunate that more members of the WG haven't had time
    to be as involved
    … If the content that we have is sufficient, then great but I
    worry about it a little.

    SimonCox: The nature of the product is a little different from
    the others
    … What we have is a minor advnace from what we had before

    eparsons: Your confidence and reputation goes a long way of

    KJanowic: Would it help if we commented within the WG?
    … Or would that create more pain - I'm talking about cosmetic

    eparsons: I think at this point, cosmetic changes won't make a
    huge difference.

    SimonCox: I've had substantial input from Josh, Simon and Raul

    eparsons: That's recorded I guess so we can reference that

    phila: What are the equivalent OGC steps?

    SimonCox: It'll be an RFC

    eparsons: It'll be a parallel process. The timing won't work
    well. We'll have to run the processes in parallel

    eparsons: It will need to go through...

    SimonCox: I think it was under Geosemantics DWIG

    SimonCox: There is no DWIG because OGC deferred to the W3C
    … There is a temporal DWIG invented subsequently

    eparsons: My feeling is that the OGC process might take longer

    eparsons: Scott might know a way to expedite this quickly

    SimonCox: Chris is in the temporal DWIG

    <SimonCox> [17]https://


    eparsons: We'll need Scott to work on this

    <SimonCox> [18]https://


    <eparsons> phila 2 calls with director one becoming CR one
    leaving CR status

    <eparsons> phila assuming all goes well becomes proposed
    recommendation similar to OGC process

    <eparsons> phila Should publish simultaneously

    <eparsons> phila final step can wait for OGC process

    eparsons: Anything we need to do today in terms of process?

    PROPOSED: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate
    Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology
    at [19]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, subject to minor edits
    to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future
    implementation report

      [19] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/,

    PROPOSED: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate
    Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology
    at [20]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, subject to minor edits
    to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future
    implementation report; W3T to take care of stylesheet issues

      [20] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/,

    <eparsons> +1

    <KJanowic> +1

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    eparsons: If you're willing to vote, please do so now...

    <roba> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    <Payam> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <mlefranc> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    Resolved: That the WG seeks transition to Candidate
    Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time Ontology
    at [21]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, subject to minor edits
    to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to the future
    implementation report; W3T to take care of stylesheet issues

      [21] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/,

    PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Simon


    <eparsons> +1

    <KJanowic> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <roba> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    Resolved: Vote of thanks to Simon


    eparsons: We'll follow the same process. Armin?

    <SimonCox> [22]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

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

    ahaller2: We're aiming today for the final WG for wide review.
    Had enormous contributions from Simon and Maxime.
    … we're confident that the doc is ready for wide review
    … we worked for a long time on the ontologies but didn't spend
    a lot of time on the doc
    … We have been addressing the remaining issues
    … We have been considering keeping the sosa and ssn prefixes
    … So if you look at the doc
    … section 2 fig 1 describes what the doc includes
    … SSN imports SOSA and adds semantics.
    … Diagram specifies normative and non-normative sections
    … Lots of alignments
    … We pulled out the Dulce upper level ontology
    … So SSN no longer relies on it but you can use it if you want
    … Also have the SSNX alignment module
    … We want to put it at the old location of the SSN
    … It's just the old ontology ith subclass/equiv relationships
    … Then we have some other alignments, esp to OGC ontologies
    … Also alignment to PROV

    <SimonCox> O&M Alignment module is normative?

    ahaller2: Major part of the doc is the axomatisation
    … Had the benefit of editors in 3 time zones so work was round
    the clock
    … Better contrast etc.

    ahaller2: The doc is ready, we think for wide review
    … Some questions on what we can change in the review period
    … Can we add examples?

    ahaller2: We want to add some contributors
    … Not sure who to add

    KJanowic: Thanks Armnin for the summary
    … One of the previous concerns was why we need SOSA and SSN.
    There's a section 3 that addresses this, scope, audience etc.
    … It explains why there is SOSA, why the alignments etc.

    SimonCox: The O&M alignment module is, I think, normative, not
    … The significant motivation being that this is a a joint
    OGC/W3C project

    <ahaller2> +1 to normative O&M Alignment

    <ahaller2> We also have started on documenting the usage
    earlier, but it is outdated at the moment: [23]http://

      [23] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

    roba: If it's normative do we need evidence of implementation
    of the alignment

    <eparsons> phila - you are a few weeks behind time, changes are
    mostly editiorial

    <eparsons> phila - we are getting ready for CR we need wide
    review so everything can change !

    <eparsons> phila Need wide review of stable document however...

    <eparsons> phila robs question what does normative mean for O&M
    how would you show ? Not sure...

    <KJanowic> IMHO, you cannot show implementation evidence of
    something like an alignment as this is a set of axioms that
    support entailment

    <eparsons> phila evidence unclear on what makes alignment

    <eparsons> phila WG can set exit criteria however...

    <eparsons> phila evidence of SSN and SOSA terms more difficult
    than O&M ?

    <eparsons> phila Process not really defined for this...

    KJanowic: If we have an axiom containing an O&M term, you're
    saying that you also have one of those SOSA term

    <SimonCox> Re O&M-SOSA alignment evidence - I believe
    Geoscience Australia has a sample description service that is
    based on O&M and also has an RDF interface

    KJanowic: We had the same conversation with Francois. He said
    that if you can say that it's just inferencing rules, then you
    prob don't need to show actual implementation

    roba: Some evidence of something using those rules, would be
    good, and potentially doable. The challenge is showing *all* of
    the rules being used.

    roba: If it works, it looks the same...

    <KJanowic> [I have to leave now to teach a class; I would like
    to vote +1 for all SSN/SOSA votes that push the document

    [24]Wide Review

      [24] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review

    <mlefranc> [25]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/ ?

      [25] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

    <mlefranc> can we implement change requests during the wide
    review ?

    ahaller2: I think we should have a WD Tuesday week, but we can
    start colleting wide review now

    <mlefranc> we don't need a vote for that right ?

    eparsons: The most valuable bit now is reaching out to people
    to get reviews

    phila: No, mlefranc no need to vote for that

Wrap up

    <mlefranc> excellent, thanks a lot

    eparsons: Huge effort that has gone on. Thanks very much

    <ahaller2> thanks indeed to everyone for the work on SSN!

    <ahaller2> bye

    <RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

    <mlefranc> thanks, bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [26]Approve last week's minutes
     2. [27]That the WG seeks transition to Candidate
        Recommendation for the editors draft of the OWL Time
        Ontology at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, subject to
        minor edits to section 1 and section 5.9 being removed to
        the future implementation report; W3T to take care of
        stylesheet issues
     3. [28]Vote of thanks to Simon

Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 21:12:05 UTC