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

Hi Andrea,

I created the necessary Wiki page. Thanks for catching this.

Francois.

> From: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu [mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 6:07 PM
> 
> 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 Monday, 17 July 2017 14:14:56 UTC