- From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:59:24 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Good news!! Many thanks for the hard work.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
Verzonden: woensdag 19 april 2017 23:12
Aan: SDW WG Public List
Onderwerp: [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
Attendees
Present
ahaller2, billroberts, DanhLePhuoc, eparsons, KJanowic,
MattPerry, mlefranc, Payam, phila, RaulGarciaCastro,
roba, SimonCox
Regrets
Andrea, Jeremy, Linda, Scott
Chair
Ed
Scribe
Phila
Contents
* [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/
Meetings:Telecon20170405
[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
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdw-minutes
+1
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
5-9
… 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
wiki)
<eparsons> phila comments disposition teleco with director
formal step
<eparsons> SimonCox Can do section 1 today, need help with
stylesheets
<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
course.
KJanowic: Would it help if we commented within the WG?
… Or would that create more pain - I'm talking about cosmetic
changes
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
process
… 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://
portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=425
[17]
https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=425
eparsons: We'll need Scott to work on this
<SimonCox> [18]https://
portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=50
[18]
https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=50
<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
+1
<eparsons> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<billroberts> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<roba> +1
<ahaller2> +1
Resolved: Vote of thanks to Simon
SSN
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
informative
… 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://
w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
[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
normative
<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
forward]
[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
everyone
<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 Thursday, 20 April 2017 09:59:57 UTC