- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:45:50 +0100
- To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello SDW SSN sub-group,
The minutes of last call (2 days ago) are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below. Phone discussions have not always been captured, and were mixed with discussions on IRC, making the minutes hard to follow.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference
31 Jan 2017
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0188.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-irc
Attendees
Present
roba, ahaller2, Kjanowic, SimonCox, ScottSimmons, kerry,
phila, Joshlieberman, Francois, DanhLePhuoc,
RaulGarciaCastro, ClausStadler, sefkikolozali,
Kerry (IRC only)
Regrets
Chair
Armin
Scribe
sefkikolozali
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]patent call
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
2. [6]SOSA/SSN vertical integration architecture
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rew
riting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January
_2017
__________________________________________________________
patent call [7]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[7] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
SOSA/SSN vertical integration architecture
[8]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#C
ompromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
[8] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
armin: please let us know if you have any copyright
infringement.
Armin: we are going to go through the Kerry's proposal.
<Kjanowic_> and this is problematic
<Kjanowic_> +1
<roba> +1
armin: everyone agrees we have two uri two ontology files
<SimonCox> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<kerry> objection!
<kerry> I cannot hear the discussion as you know
<phila> PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different
namespaces
<kerry> and i do not know anything about a resolution that just
appeared on the irc
<Kjanowic_> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<kerry> I canot agree
<kerry> -1
<phila> +1
roba: two different namespaces are not the same as two
different URIs
<Kjanowic_> We have "he namespace for SSN terms is
[9]http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/" and "The namespace for SOSA terms
is [10]http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/"
[9] http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
[10] http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/
<SimonCox> Can we use the queue please?
<roba> two ontologies IRIs may reusee the same namespace (which
has a RI which may or may not be an ontology IRI as well)
<phila> +1 to SimonCox
<Kjanowic_> I agree with SimonCox
<Joshlieberman> Simon, did you just ordain us?
simon: the comment that rob and josh has been making is
strictly correct. The URIs and namespaces are strictly
independent from each other. We should take into account the
users for namespaces and URI decision
<roba> i agree also - i think this is the key issue
<SimonCox> <Kjanowic_> We have "he namespace for SSN terms is
[11]http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/" and "The namespace for SOSA
terms is [12]http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/"
[11] http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
[12] http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/
<roba> are we voting on the state of the draft or the
principle?
<Kjanowic_> the principle
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different IRIs
and two different ontology namespaces
<Kjanowic_> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<phila> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<kerry> -1
roba: whether ssn itself needs to have a different namespace or
a separate ontology file is a separate issue. this issue is
about files: packaging.
<Kjanowic_> I would have to disagree
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: That SOSA and SSN have two different IRIs
<roba> +1
<SimonCox> New issue: do terms defined in the SOSA ontology
have a different namespace than the terms defined in the SSN
namespace
roba: can we separate the questions to having to different
ontologies with two different IRIs.
<kerry> -1
<ahaller2> kerry on wiki: Core ssn and extended ssn are
presented as different ontologies - in dfferent files with
different ontology iris
<SimonCox> Correction: roba asked do terms defined in the SOSA
ontology have a different namespace than the terms defined in
the SSN ontology
<SimonCox> Kjanowic_: asks if SSN will import SOSA and re-use
the SOSA URIs where they overlap with the SSN concepts.
<Kjanowic_> no, we do
<SimonCox> kerry: no-one is proposing ssn:Sensor
rdfs:subclassof sosa:Sensor - please look at the work I posted
in the last week.
<roba> agree with jano - and armin - these are follow-on issues
that we can address once principles are ticked off one by one
<SimonCox> Joshlieberman: rdfs:isDefinedBy is not the
membership predicate for ontologies
<SimonCox> it is a common convention but not universal and not
an axiom
<Kjanowic_> [but we aready voted on that]
<phila> Joshlieberman just said what I wanted to say only more
clearly than I would have.
roba: we can use the ontology membership for classes, sosa
classes belong to sosa and ssn classes. however, restriction
are difficult to make for certain ontology. they are only group
of a file. therefore, as a hint having different namespace c
could help to separate. we still have to be careful so that
when we make separation.
<roba> agree with Josh - we may need three files: SOSA, SOSA
formal axioms and SSN refinements
<Kjanowic_> Yes, what does this do to our previous vote?
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to say that these issues cannot be
determinedin isolation. If this forces us into a position where
we have to say that ssn:Sensor rdfs:subclassof sosa:Sensor then
<Joshlieberman> 1). Two ontology IRI's? - yes. 2) two
namespaces? Maybe. 3) how to segregate axioms? Not sure
<kerry> I cannot hear a thing and very little is going into
irc, I am afraid.
armin: we have two different files and two IRIs. we could
separate the question.
<kerry> soory -- am i acked or not?
armin is reading Kerry's comments.
<kerry> I wanted to say that these are not issues that can be
determined in isolation
<kerry> It looks a lot like boiling frogs to me
<Kjanowic_> I have to disagree
<kerry> for example, a combination of bits and peices in this
issue have ssn (ontology) importing sosa (ontlogy)
<kerry> and uing sosa terms (namespace) and havinh ssn
(ontology)
<kerry> having to include an axiom like ssn:Senor
rdfsSubcallsof sosa:Sensor
<kerry> this makes ssn unusable and simply stupid.
<Kjanowic_> +1 to simonCox
<Kjanowic_> yes and no
<roba> agree - simon has show we dont need subclasses (+1_ - so
the issue is naming preferences for SSN narrower cases ?
<phila> What Simon said made sense to me
Simon: my preference is to keep sosa as lightweight, and have a
separate IRI.
<Kjanowic_> not really
<phila> ahaller2: Having separate files and namespaces doesn't
itself imply subclassing etc.
<DanhLePhuoc> Simon's summary:
[13]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/517
[13] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/517
<roba> i thought we refined the proposal
<roba> so we didnt conflate namespaces
<roba> this is not a problem if SSN is providing axioms based
on SOSA definitions - not "extending"
<SimonCox> +1 roba
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about DC, DCAT and DCAT-AP
<roba> armin - not "two" - "separate" - maybe we'll decide on
three....
<ahaller2> roba: yes, sorry, not "two", "different"
<Joshlieberman> Trying to separate 3 issues. Third is how to
segregate SSN axiom from Sosa vocabulary without subclasses.
Only different files and or separate namespaces can suggest
that the axioms should not be applied to Sosa. No part of OWL
enforces that.
<Kjanowic_> yes, exactly +1 to what phila is saying
<roba> yes + 1 = SOSA, SOSA OWL axioms _ SSN aplication profile
is exaclty the pattern I was envisoning in the original
vertical mod discussion
<Kjanowic_> +1 (YES!)
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to say i have no idea what simon siad
but that I saw this stement in simon's work on git hunb about
24 hours ago which is the last time I looked and to sak whther
<Kjanowic_> This is due to the semantics of owl, this is not
about what we like but what the W3C sepcs state. So yes +1 to
phila
<Kjanowic_> +1 to SimonCox
<Kjanowic_> IMHO 3 files are really overdoing it. I see the
idiea but this will be too complicated
simon: two possible patterns to be used in ssn and sosa. one is
subclass, other one is adding axiomization.and constraints to
sosa.
<ScottSimmons> * sorry, must leave early
<Kjanowic_> Yes!!!
<roba> i think it looks like it will be easier to have three
files and be clear about them - both for design and usage, than
conflate concerns in single files..
<SimonCox> 2 possible patterns: 1. subclass to add
restrictions, if they are inconsistent with the original
definitions 2. merely add axioms to the sosa class, provided
they are not inconsistent with the original text definitions
<Kjanowic_> so please can we vote on josh's first sentence?
<Kjanowic_> Yes, Josh is right!
<roba> clear - and consistent with the three layer pattern IMHO
<roba> can we have principle 2: axioms added to classes in a
reused namespace must be completely consistent with the
imported text definitions (and any imported axioms)
<Kjanowic_> so lets vote
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to wonder what happened to me on the
q and to nuance that
<Kjanowic_> Can we vote on 2+ files, 2+ namespaces, and 2+
IRIs?
<kerry> do i have the floor?
<ahaller2> yes
<kerry> I cannot follow, i am afraid, therefore I am unwilling
to be pushed into a vote I do not understand
<kerry> However, can I ask whther anybody looked at the
proposal with worked example that I placed on the wiuki sa few
days ago?
<roba> 2+ files, 2+ IRIs -> and only need different namespaces
if we need subclasses with different set membership
<kerry> there bein no answer I take that as no....
<SimonCox> kerry: can you give link please
<kerry> so can I please urge people to look at ti and coment
<ahaller2> @kerry: yes we looked, not yet at that stage in the
discussion
<RaulGarciaCastro>
[14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewritin
g_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
[14] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
<roba> kerry - i looked at it ;-)
<kerry> It is the first time a comprehensive pattern has been
proposed with a worked example
<Kjanowic_>
[15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewritin
g_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
<RaulGarciaCastro> kerry - me too
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs
<kerry> Ii know rob did a good job summarising an alternative
pattern also on the mailing list
<SimonCox> +1
<Joshlieberman> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<Kjanowic_> +1 for PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs
<ahaller2> +1
<roba> +1
<kerry> but frnakly i see lots of bits of issues but cno
comprehensive pattern with examples
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<kerry> would it be possibe for an alternative (complete)
pattern to be descibed and supported by examples on the wiki/
<kerry> ?
<ahaller2> @kerry, yes we do not have a resolution on how we do
the integration
<kerry> o
Note from Francois, the following was initially resolved but
canceled after further exchanges on IRC:
RESOLUTION: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate ontology
files
<SimonCox> kerry: your proposal looks basically sound to me.
You can use my tables as an inventory to complete.
<Kjanowic_> +1
<kerry> -1
<kerry> -1
<kerry> when was the vote?
<kerry> -1
<Joshlieberman> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<ahaller2> kerry: why?
<kerry> I don't know what I am voting on
<roba> kerry - this was your first principle - we've just been
decluttering its assumptions and conflated issues :-)
<ahaller2> on two seperate ontology files, msg: 8:55
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<kerry> I see a resolution that I did not vote one
<kerry> -1
<ahaller2> kerry you voted o
<kerry> pardon?
<kerry> do you mean "o"
<ahaller2> 08:54 kerry: o
<SimonCox> kerry: your proposal looks basically sound to me,
particularly the section headed "ssn fragment, assuming ssn
imports sosa". You can use my tables as an inventory to
complete.
<kerry> i did type an "o" but it was not "0"
<kerry> and was not in response to any vote
<ahaller2> that is good enough for a resolution, everyone else
+1
<ClausStadler> to me it seems reasonable having these things
separated in different files, but i since i missed the
discussions over the past week i can't do a educated vote
<kerry> -1
<Kjanowic_> @simoncox: as long as we do not have axioms of the
type sosa:xyz [something] ssn:xyz
<kerry> I voted -1 every time
<kerry> FORMAL OBJECTION
<ahaller2> @kerry: formal objection to seperate IRIs?
<kerry> formal objection to having been undersoot to vote
anything other than -1
<kerry> please, it would help if i knew what vote we had?
<kerry> is it the "resolved" that was types into the irc?
<kerry> As you know, I cannot hear
<kerry> I am relying on the irc
<kerry> do i have the floor please?
<kerry> Is that yes?
<ahaller2> @kerry we are listening to Francois
<kerry> Then I want to make it very clear that every vote I
have placed in this meeeting is a -1
<Joshlieberman> Yes. There were two proposals: whether to have
separate ontology IRI's and whether to have separate ontology
files.
<kerry> I want to make that very clear not because I am a
pedantic, but because it seems it has been assumed that I have
voted in favour of something (not sure what)
<Joshlieberman> We have not voted on separate namespaces.
<kerry> so... have we voted on something?
<kerry> has something been resolved?
<ahaller2> no, nothing resolved, because of your objection
<Joshlieberman> I replied to You, kerry. Can you see the IRC.
<roba> i agree we dont have a disagreement - just got the
voting process too hard to follow on irc alone :-(
<roba> kerry hasnt actually intended to vote -1 for everything
- just how we interpreted her irc shorthand...
<SimonCox> why not PROPOSED: SOSA elements have their own
namespace. SSN elements use a different namespace, except where
they re-use elements imported from other ontologies, including
SOSA
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate ontology
files
<ahaller2> please vote
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<roba> +1\
<Joshlieberman> +1
<Kjanowic_> Simon , please speak up
<Kjanowic_> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<roba> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to answer armin
<ahaller2> @kerry we do not have a resolution on either of the
two
<ahaller2> it is just to document in the minutes
<kerry> ok, then can you please ensure this above is removed
from the minutes "RESOLVED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs"
(Note from Francois: minutes edited afterwards to state that
resolution was not adopted)
<SimonCox> This is good
[16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewritin
g_SSN#ssn_fragment.2C_assuming_ssn_imports_sosa
[16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#ssn_fragment.2C_assuming_ssn_imports_sosa
<SimonCox> Why haven't we been able to move forward?
<SimonCox> It is also largely consisten with my proposals in
the last week
<kerry> to appreciate that simon has looked at the proposal
<Joshlieberman> Violent near-agreement and on that note, bye
<kerry> and also to say that Krz has expressed strong
objectnions (I am not sure he read it though)
<Kjanowic_> I did
<SimonCox> (I understand K's objections though)
<kerry> Is the meeting still going?
<SimonCox> bye
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<ahaller2> @kerry, no just closed
<Kjanowic_> yes, because owl does not function that way
<kerry> ta
<kerry> bye.
<Kjanowic_> bye
<roba> i think we havent actually disagreed with the content -
just couldnt get the process working smoothly :-(
<SimonCox> Make sure to capture minutes ...
<ahaller2> UNRESOLVED: SOSA and SSN new use seperate IRIs
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 08:46:01 UTC