W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > June 2017

[minutes] Plenary meeting - 2017-06-14

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:53:35 +0200
To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00e701d2e550$4ac3dc60$e04b9520$@w3.org>
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 Wednesday, 14 June 2017 20:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:33 UTC