RE: [minutes] Plenary meeting - 2017-06-14

Hi, François.

This is just to note that this meeting is not yet recorded in the SDW Meetings page:

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings


Cheers,

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 10:54 PM
>To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>Subject: [minutes] Plenary meeting - 2017-06-14
>
>Hi all,
>
>The draft minutes of today's plenary meeting are available at:
>https://www.w3.org/2017/06/14-sdw-minutes.html

>
>... and copied as raw text below.
>
>We reviewed the status of the different specifications that the Working
>Group is working on, taking into account the need to publish final Working
>Group Notes of documents that are not on the Recommendation track by end
>of June. In essence, for each spec, once it's ready, I need a resolution
>(typically the result of a call for consensus on the mailing-list) that the
>Working Group is ok to publish the latest editor's draft as a final Working
>Group Note. The actual publication can happen as soon as I have that
>resolution.
>
>We also resolved to endorse SOSA being taken up by schema.org. I expect
>Armin will send an email about that to the mailing-list soon, so that people
>can comment on this resolution if needed.
>
>Thanks,
>Francois.
>
>-----
>Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
>14 June 2017
>
>   [2]Agenda [3]IRC log
>
>      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-

>wg/2017Jun/0061.html
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/14-sdw-irc

>
>Attendees
>
>   Present
>          Armin, billroberts, Francois, KJanowic, ScottSimmons
>
>   Regrets
>          Andrea, Lars
>
>   Chair
>          Armin
>
>   Scribe
>          Francois
>
>Contents
>
>     * [4]Meeting Minutes
>         1. [5]approving last meetings minutes: http://www.w3.org/

>            2017/05/31-sdw-minutes
>         2. [6]patent call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/

>            Patent_Call
>         3. [7]Coverage sub-group progress
>         4. [8]Best Practices subgroup
>         5. [9]time subgroup
>         6. [10]SSN subgroup
>         7. [11]Vote on Endorsement of SOSA for Schema.org
>            adoption
>     * [12]Summary of Resolutions
>
>Meeting Minutes
>
>approving last meetings minutes: [13]http://www.w3.org/2017/05/

>31-sdw-minutes
>
>     [13] http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-sdw-minutes

>
>   <KJanowic> 0
>
>   +1
>
>   <ScottSimmons> +0
>
>   <billroberts> 0, sorry wasn't there
>
>   <ahaller2_> +1
>
>   [minutes approved]
>
>patent call [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

>
>   [Armin goes through the usual patent call notice]
>
>   Armin: Light agenda today. Status update, and then uptake of
>   the SOSA work in schema.org.
>   … Dan Brickley would like some explicit indication from the
>   group that the group is OK.
>
>Coverage sub-group progress
>
>   Bill: 3 deliverables that we've been working on. They are all
>   pretty much in the final state.
>   … QB4ST, I made a couple of minor edits to that today.
>   … A couple of minor issues, on Rob's plate.
>   … I'm sure we can address them by tomorrow.
>   … The EOQB is now I think complete.
>   … The CoverageJSON document, we've done quite a lot of work in
>   the last couple of weeks.
>   … Close to being finalized. One remaining issue from Jon.
>   … Jon wrote a short section that discusses relation between
>   CoverageJSON and OGC Time series ML standard.
>   … Who would you think would be the right person to ask to
>   review that part?
>
>   Armin: That's a good question. Simon does not seem online, he's
>   the one I would have thought about.
>
>   Bill: I'm happy to approach him through the mailing-list.
>
>   ScottSimmons: I recommend talking to Chris Little. Time-centric
>   guy and expert in coverages as well.
>
>   Bill: OK, very useful tip, thanks. I'll email him tomorrow.
>   … Assuming that Chris is willing to do that, then there is a
>   little bit of work remaining to do on CoverageJSON to take it
>   to a final state.
>   … What do we then need to do to each of these documents to
>   formalize the publishing of the final version of these?
>
>   Francois: Essentially, I need a WG resolution for each of these
>   docs that states that the group is OK with publication as final
>   WG Note, and then I can proceed.
>   … Publication can happen last week of June.
>   … Resolution should be through a Call for Consensus on the
>   mailing-list.
>
>Best Practices subgroup
>
>   Francois: I'll get in touch with Jeremy and Linda about the
>   doc. Same thing, publication as final WG Note would need a WG
>   resolution.
>
>time subgroup
>
>   Armin: Simon is not around.
>
>   Francois: Published as a CR on W3C side. Needs to stay in CR
>   until beginning of July. Then it all depends on the completion
>   of the implementation report.
>
>   Scott: On the OGC side, we're working on the process to follow.
>   That should work out just well in the end.
>
>SSN subgroup
>
>   Armin: We'll have another 2 calls. We're still adding examples.
>   Interesting discussions with people implementation IoT
>   actuation through REST APIs.
>   … Some pending PR on our side to add actuation examples, to
>   query the state, etc.
>   … Otherwise, no change to the document, apart from updating
>   figures.
>   … We had a couple of discussions around a couple of axioms that
>   could pose some problems.
>   … We had some discussions among editors, but figured out this
>   was not an issue.
>   … Only one inverse property axiom that needs to be deleted,
>   on-going PR to do that.
>   … That would be a change to the ontology, but to remove a
>   property, not to cause some unwanted entailment.
>   … That's the only thing which changed in the normative part.
>   … The i18n group is reviewing the doc, which prevents
>   publication as CR
>
>   Francois: Will check i18n review status. We should have done
>   that before. No big deal about the minor normative change
>   provided the group is aware of it.
>
>   <ahaller2_> [15]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

>
>     [15] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

>
>   Armin: I'll warn the group. We're also making progress on
>   recording implementation evidence.
>   … We may still have issues around system capabilities.
>   Identified as feature at risk.
>   … We probably won't have implementation evidence for that, but
>   that should not be a problem given the exit criteria and at
>   risk features.
>
>   Francois: [reminds everyone of end of June deadline and need to
>   show as complete an implementation report as possible by then]
>
>Vote on Endorsement of SOSA for Schema.org adoption
>
>   Armin: Goal is to take SOSA core, lightweight ontology in the
>   SSN subgroup, which was always intended to be schema.org
>   friendly, and adopt it in schema.org.
>   … Dan Brickely wants us as a Working Group to endorse him to do
>   that (due to previous frictions in similar cases)
>   … Within the SSN subgroup, we have no issue with that.
>   … But we wanted to raise that in the plenary.
>
>   KJanowic: If I understand correctly the tricky part here is
>   that we're working on a W3C/OGC standard, and schema.org is de
>   facto standards, and it would be odd to see the standard work
>   "forked".
>   … What's important to point out is that this is not a fork, but
>   an endorsement of our work.
>
>   Bill: I support the idea. If we have two copies of more or less
>   the same thing, risk of having things diverge may exist, but I
>   think it's minimal in this case.
>   … It's a very positive thing.
>   … I would give my support to schema.org endorsing this work.
>   … It's the best thing for sensing data.
>
>   <KJanowic> The point was that we should give Dan the
>   endorsement and work with him to ensure that this is not a
>   fork. SOSA was developed with schema.org in mind
>
>   Francois: Do we know already if schema.org is going to make
>   changes to the ontology?
>
>   Armin: That's still to be discussed. We can't anticipate what
>   things they may want to drop or extend.
>
>   KJanowic: I think the email was triggered by DCAT people not
>   being happy about the forking in schema.org.
>   … For the moment, we should just push for that adoption.
>
>   Armin: Taking up SOSA would also be implementation evidence.
>   … Something very useful
>
>   <KJanowic> schema.org is a great chance for SOSA (and the other
>   way around)
>
>   Francois: Just wondering whether changes made by schema.org
>   could mean that we haven't done our job properly with SOSA for
>   instance.
>
>   Armin: That's basically how things work with ontologies. I
>   don't think this would be an issue.
>   … Changes would not be an indication that we did something
>   wrong.
>
>   KJanowic: Let me just add that I'm sure they won't use
>   everything directly, because they have a different audience,
>   and need to be conservative.
>   … Also, for consistency with their naming conventions, they may
>   come up with different names. That's perfectly fine as well.
>   … That's why I think it's important to work with Dan.
>   … We should be on the train to be able to influence that work.
>
>   Armin: I would like to run a proposal here
>
>   <ahaller2_> PROPOSED: Group endorses SOSA being taken up by
>   schema.org
>
>   <ahaller2_> +1
>
>   <billroberts> +1
>
>   +1
>
>   <kJanowic_> +1
>
>   <ScottSimmons> +1
>
>   Resolved: Group endorses SOSA being taken up by schema.org
>
>   Armin: I will point that resolution to the group on the
>   mailing-list so that people can express support or disagree.
>
>   Armin: AOB?
>
>   <kJanowic_> bye
>
>   <ScottSimmons> adios
>
>   <ahaller2_> bye
>
>   <billroberts> bye all
>
>Summary of Resolutions
>
>    1. [16]Group endorses SOSA being taken up by schema.org
>

Received on Friday, 14 July 2017 16:07:48 UTC