- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:13:23 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's SSN sub group meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/14-sdwssn-minutes with a snapshot below.
Some progress was made!
Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference
14 Feb 2017
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170214
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/14-sdwssn-irc
Attendees
Present
ahaller2, phila_car, SimonCox, scribe, kerry, mlefranc,
DanhLePhuoc, KJanowic, RaulGarciaCastro, ClausStadler,
laurent_oz
Regrets
Chair
Armin
Scribe
roba
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Patent call
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
2. [6]approve last week's minutes
3. [7]Alignment of SOSA/SSN with O&M shall denote classes
and properties from the ISO 19156 O&M UML model using
URIs which are defined in ISO 19150-2, and are
currently visible in ontology files available
from https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isot
c211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011
4. [8]SOSA pattern for Observation and Value: remove
hasValue, keep class Result as of Option 3 on wiki:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
5. [9]Include Actuation, ActuableProperty and Actuator
class with associated relations (invokedBy,
actuatedProperty) in SOSA as of proposal on wiki:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation_in_SOSA
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Patent call [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<SimonCox> approve last week's minutes?
<phila_car> [13]Last week's minutes
[13] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/07-sdwssn-minutes
approve last week's minutes
<KJanowic> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<phila_car> +1
<mlefranc> +1
Alignment of SOSA/SSN with O&M shall denote classes and properties
from the ISO 19156 O&M UML model using URIs which are defined in ISO
19150-2, and are currently visible in ontology files available
from [14]https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isotc211_GOM_ha
rmonizedOntology/19156/2011
https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011
+1 - noting i was in fact present ..
simoncox reiterated the proposal
<SimonCox> RobA is the scribe!
<Zakim> phila_car, you wanted to talk URIs
kerry_: is this only as ref to the O&M model
<ahaller2> PROPOSAL: Alignment of SOSA/SSN with O&M shall
denote classes and properties from the ISO 19156 O&M UML model
using URIs which are defined in ISO 19150-2, and are currently
visible in ontology files available
from [15]https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/istoc211_
GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011
[15]
https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/istoc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156/2011
phila: discussed with ISO, "good will" regarding intent here,
dereferencing mechanics to be taken care of
<KJanowic> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<kerry_> +1
<mlefranc> +1
+1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<phila_car> +1
ahaller2: commit to git?
SimonCox: in wiki ready top drop in when appropriate
<SimonCox>
[16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_O%26M
[16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_O&M
KJanowic: multiple edits to wiki is hard to track - can we
discuss on email and one person edit?
... specifically when options are being edited, email
discussion can be made ambiguous
<KJanowic> fine with me
kerry_: lots of stuff on email - comments fragment and get lost
- wiki capture is better - proposes comments wiki page if
in-line comments a problem
<KJanowic> (I never suggested that)
agree with kerry - wiki style, email is too hard to folloow
current state
@ahaller 2 do you want to propose a way or do i need to capture
those rtecommendations?
<kerry_> +1
<SimonCox> roba: then you need to write "RESOLVED:" afterwards
PROPOSED: That options are not changed in substance on the
wiki, and new options provided if needed
<ahaller2> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<mlefranc> +1
<kerry_> +1
+1
<SimonCox> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<ClausStadler> +1
kerry_: please link pages in so they can be found
<mlefranc> [17]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page
->
[18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Networ
k_Ontology
[17] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page
[18]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Network_Ontology
SOSA pattern for Observation and Value: remove hasValue, keep class
Result as of Option 3 on wiki:
[19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
[19] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
<SimonCox> Its linked from here:
[20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Networ
k_Ontology
[20]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Network_Ontology
<KJanowic> Can you post the link
<ahaller2> SOSA pattern for Observation and Value: remove
hasValue, keep class Result as of Option 3 on wiki:
[21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Va
lue#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_ha
sValue.2C_keep_class_Result
[22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/90
[21]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_hasValue.2C_keep_class_Result
[22] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/90
kerry_: the discussion is not complete enough yet - e.g. how
oldSSN can be transitioned to model
... deprecating classes without working out how the alignment
would work is a "cop-out"
ahller2: so object to voting on this today?
kerry_: depends on the wording on the proposal
<KJanowic> other people would like to speak too
kerry_: have mentioned these issues on list
KJanowic: option 3 does not allow simple SOSA to refer to the
value - would prefer a new(?) option 5
<KJanowic> I am fine with option 3 but 5 would allow sosa users
to directly publish observation values without having to learn
how to do this with the help of other ontologies (which is
important for sosa users)
<KJanowic> @roba: it would be option 5 (as is)
mlefranc: preferes to vote today - find some common ground
@KJanowic thanks for clarifying
<KJanowic> +1 to voting today, we have been putting issues
aside for months
<KJanowic> I agree with ahaller2 (on results)
<RaulGarciaCastro> Today we can vote on selecting one of the
options, but we cannot decide on the concrete implementations
because they are incomplete
<SimonCox> potential PROPOSAL: Actuation + Actuator shall be
included in SOSA
<kerry_> I am proposing that in option 3 we change 'result"
back to "observedvalue"
<phila_car> I wanted to say it sounds as if there is consensus
on moving forward but that Kerry still has concerns
<phila_car> OK, so vote to move forward but invite kerry to
come back with specific modifications after the vot
<KJanowic> +1 to simon (on keeping result)
SimonCox: result of actuation or sample not an
"ObservationValue"
kerry_: notes SensorML uses ObservationValue terminology
<KJanowic> option 5 is option 3 + a direct way for sosa users
to assign values to observations which is very important. We
can also change the hasValue name if this is the only problem
<SimonCox> Yes - Kerry does have a point, superclass Result
conflates several rather different concepts (including 'Sample'
which is the outcome of a sampling activity)
<ahaller2> roba: Option 5 has a number of TODOs and question
marks. If I do an actuation, I get a result back, which
includes the observed value, for example, it is "on now"
<KJanowic> Yes +1 on that
<KJanowic> I like this idea!
Kjanowic: have not yet considerd actuation - may needs
broadeing as Option 5
<KJanowic> I would be pretty unhappy with option 4
<ClausStadler> an actuation result seems to me more like the
return value of a function invocation - if i say: rotate some
component by 45 degree, the result may be a pointer (URI) to a
sequence of observations being made as the action runs.
<KJanowic> +1 to having a vote and keep improving!
phila: good conversation about technical details - urges some
sort of vote to demonstrate progres - can amend later if needed
<mlefranc> +1
<laurent_oz> +1
<KJanowic> IMHO, too general
<KJanowic> option 4 is like voting on almost nothing, let's be
brave ;-)
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: SOSA pattern for Observation and Value:
remove hasValue, keep class Result as of Option 3 on wiki:
[23]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Va
lue#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_ha
sValue.2C_keep_class_Result , pending a modelling decision on
isProducedBy, and a decision on how to attach values in SOSA
[23]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_hasValue.2C_keep_class_Result
<mlefranc> can me further specialized
<KJanowic> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<KJanowic> than do :-)
<SimonCox> +1
<mlefranc> PROPOSED: SOSA patter for observation and value: do
not vote about "hasValue" yet, keep some class, name it Result
for now, nearly as of option 3 in wiki
<mlefranc> +1
+0
<Zakim> kerry_, you wanted to not claus'es remark
<KJanowic> I would not like this idea, this is like voting on
nothing
<KJanowic> it is, for example, a change of state
<SimonCox> What is the result of an actuation? See RobA emails
on list
kerry_: ref ClausStadler comment - what is an actuation result?
Lack of discussion about this
<KJanowic> we are going in circles again
Thats why i voted +0 - wasnt 100% sure the model was completely
described
<SimonCox> q
<SimonCox> q
<KJanowic> +1 to that
phila: is actuation result just a followon issue? OK to vote,
<mlefranc> +1
<mlefranc> ok
+1 to that. We need treatment of consequences now, and then
revisit if needed
<ahaller2_> PROPOSED: SOSA pattern for Observation and Value:
remove hasValue, keep class Result as of Option 3 on wiki:
[24]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Va
lue#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_ha
sValue.2C_keep_class_Result
[24]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value#Option_3:_SOSA_pattern_for_Observation_and_Value:_remove_hasValue.2C_keep_class_Result
<KJanowic> +1
<mlefranc> +1
+1
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2_> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<Raul> +1
<kerry_> 0
<laurent_oz> 0
<mlefranc> action ?
<KJanowic> great, can we brielfy talk about the actuation part?
ahller2: agenda next meeting to include followup options and
descriptions
Include Actuation, ActuableProperty and Actuator class with
associated relations (invokedBy, actuatedProperty) in SOSA as of
proposal on wiki:
[25]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation_in_SOSA
[25] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation_in_SOSA
KJanowic: describes proposal on wiki.
<SimonCox> Window example: window has a property "open" with
boolean value.
<mlefranc> (apparently I accidentally deleted all my edits in
the wiki. please refresh your browser now)
<ahaller2_> roba: actuableproperty is promoted to be a special
case in this option
<KJanowic> we do have observableproperty
<SimonCox> Actuation changes the value of this property from
"true" to "false"
<KJanowic> no it has these axioms
<SimonCox> Note also distinction between ActuableProperty and
actuatedProperty - nice!
<laurent_oz> We worked on this topic at the time of the XG,
check this post on the mailing list:
[26]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Feb/
0002.html (please have a look)
[26]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Feb/0002.html
<KJanowic> I will add the axioms and options
<KJanowic> we can discuss this next week
<SimonCox> ... and I will work up Sampling equivalent
<KJanowic> @ahaller2_ I will add the code and options for next
week's discussion
KJanowic: confirms q from roba that its just the diagram
incomplete - not representing the full proposed model here,
kerry_: seems reasonable - can we apply Use Cases to this
pattern now to make sure we understand it
<KJanowic> will do so
<RaulGarciaCastro> In the WoT group they are defining as
interaction patterns Properties and Actions (also events but
these are not fix yet
([27]https://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.
html#interaction-patterns)
[27]
https://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html#interaction-patterns)
<KJanowic> [I cannot hear maxime]
<mlefranc> I like the idea that actuation and actuator is in
sosa
mlefranc: reservations about names, but would like to vote to
accept concept of actuation in SOSA
<KJanowic> I will
ahller2: asks for wiki to be updated with options to vote on
next week
<mlefranc> I like the idea that we just mimic the
observation/sensor/sensing for actuation/acutator/actuating,
and limit the number of new terms
<SimonCox> Bye
<KJanowic> thanks for the productive telco today
<KJanowic> bye bye
<mlefranc> thans
bye all
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<kerry_> bye!
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 09:13:35 UTC