- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:06:53 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's 2 hour SSN meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-minutes (in the new fancy style)
and copied as text below. I tried and failed to join the second half of
the meeting. I believe BT and Telstra compete for the title of least
reliable, least competent, most irritating ISP in the world.
Spatial Data on the Web SSN Sub Group Teleconference
14 March 2017
[2]Agenda [3]IRC log
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170314
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-sdwssn-irc
Attendees
Present
ClausStadler, Francois, KJanowic, RaulGarciaCastro,
SimonCox, ahaller2, roba
Regrets
Scott, PhilA
Chair
Armin
Scribe
DanhLePhuoc_, ahaller2
Contents
* [4]Meeting Minutes
1. [5]Approving last meeting's minutes https://
www.w3.org/2017/03/07-sdwssn-minutes
2. [6]Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Patent_Call
3. [7]1st hour - SSN, SSN+DULCE, SSN+SSNX
4. [8]Forecasts and observations https://www.w3.org/2015/
spatial/track/issues/82
5. [9]The dul:includesEvent property has disappeared
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
6. [10]ssn:startTime and ssn:endTime https://www.w3.org/
2015/spatial/track/issues/145
7. [11]Specgen doesn’t generate ssn:hasProperty and
ssn:produces https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
issues/105
8. [12]Align ssn with prov-o https://www.w3.org/2015/
spatial/track/issues/53
9. [13]Align ssn with the ontology developed for the
coverage deliverable https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
track/issues/57
10. [14]Implementation of Platform resolution https://
www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/275 and close of
issue https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88
11. [15]Krzysztof Janowicz & Danh Le Phuoc reporting on
progress on ACTION 278, ACTION 279, ACTION 280
12. [16]Discussion of options for the modelling of
Processes/Procedures in SOSA and SSN as on the wiki
at: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Procedure_Process
13. [17]Discussion of Sampling https://www.w3.org/2015/
spatial/wiki/Sampling ISSUE-92 https://www.w3.org/
2015/spatial/track/issues/92
* [18]Summary of Action Items
* [19]Summary of Resolutions
Meeting Minutes
Approving last meeting's minutes [20]https://www.w3.org/2017/03/
07-sdwssn-minutes
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/07-sdwssn-minutes
+1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<roba> +1
<tidoust> +1
<mlefranc> +1
minutes approved
Patent Call [21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[21] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
1st hour - SSN, SSN+DULCE, SSN+SSNX
Forecasts and observations [22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
issues/82
[22] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/82
DanhLePhuoc: Forecast is a long running issue already on the
mailing list
DanhLePhuoc: Question: Should we cover Forecasting in SSN and
if yes, how?
DanhLePhuoc: Domain Meteorology for example require
forecasting, Chris, Simon are advocates for Forecasting
DanhLePhuoc_: But we have time pressure for two implementations
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask KJanowic
KJanowic: Good in theory, but it will require several new
classes
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask DanhLePhuoc
KJanowic: For Forecasting to the best of my knowledge there are
no reference implementation out there and that makes me
concerned
<KJanowic> note that these are not just changes no property and
class names, we do not know who will use the forcasting classes
and whether we can get the implementations for this
DanhLePhuoc_: It is not only Weather forecasting, but
predicting other measurements, e.g. in traffic management,
which means it will be difficult in terms of timing
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask DanhLePhuoc_
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask ahaller2
<KJanowic> ahaller2: I am concerned about timing as well, maybe
put it into a note?
<mlefranc> talking about [23]https://w3id.org/seas/
ForecastingOntology
[23] https://w3id.org/seas/ForecastingOntology
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask mlefranc
maxime: Talks about the SEAS ontology and mentions that there
are many new classes and properties. In the context of this
group, we could just follow SimonCox's proposal on the list
that if the phneomenonTime is after the ResultTime, it is a
Forecast
KJanowic: Forecasting changes the balance. The weakest part of
SSN is the sensor network part, which it is named after. Keep
in mind how long we take to discuss sometimes one concept.
<KJanowic> Let us go back to the group and say it should go
into a follow up of this group
yes, proposal
ahaller2+
<KJanowic> Danh, I would not even propose anything now, just
say we cannot handle it for the current ssn
mlefranc: in favour of a vote on putting it into a note and add
a frequently asked question in the main body
KJanowic: concerned about the status of a note. If we are
unsure we deliver quality, are we delivering a note?
<roba> why not just an informative section in the document -
lots of vocabs have guidance notes
<roba> as maxime just said
<KJanowic> Keep in mind how the XG (!) work restricts our SSN
work now. A note on forcasting will do more harm than we may
anticipate if the model is not well worked out.
ahaller2: thinks that non-normative is a stronger commitment
than a note
<KJanowic> One more idea.
tidoust: there is no difference between the two
mlefranc: it could be a little note after the observation
concept
mlefranc: a few lines in the document could suffice
tidoust: notes can be updated more easily, they are informative
<mlefranc> +1
KJanowic: in the introduction we can talk about about
forecasts, and point the user to existing attempts in doing
forecasts such as mlefranc's work
+1 for KJanowic
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask ahaller2
<KJanowic> not a note, a senstence in the intro
<KJanowic> agree roba, but this is why we would jointly work
out a sentence based on maxime drafting 1-2 sentences
roba: sloppy terminology. SSN does support forecasting, it does
not name it forecasting. So we need to be clear what support
means.
mlefranc: we can mention how to do the simple way of
forecasting
PROPOSED: Forecasting will not be an explicit class and
associated properties in the SSN document, but we include a
note how forecasting can be modelled with existing properties
<KJanowic> lets not make ssn an ontology that covers
everything. lets point to maxime's work thereby acknowledging
the need for forecasting and at the same time point to an
example that does so using the ssn
<KJanowic> +1
<DanhLePhuoc_> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<mlefranc> +1
+1
<KJanowic> (if by note you mean sentence)
yes, note = sentences
<roba> +1
<SimonCox> There is a class="note" style in the W3C CSS which
puts it in a nice box
<KJanowic> Can you assign an action to maxime (assuming maxime
is okay with that)?
Resolved: Forecasting will not be an explicit class and
associated properties in the SSN document, but we include a
note how forecasting can be modelled with existing properties
Action: mlefranc will draft a note on Forecasting to address
ISSUE-82
<trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Will draft a note on
forecasting to address issue-82 [on Maxime Lefrançois - due
2017-03-21].
<KJanowic> When will we close 82?
The dul:includesEvent property has disappeared [24]https://
www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
[24] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/117
@KJanowic we can close the issue once mlefranc has implemented
the action
DanhLePhuoc_: issue raised by Raul, that by removing DUL we
have no dul:includesEvent property anymore
KJanowic: was questioning if DUL is a non-normative part
ahaller2: yes, we had a resolution on DUL being a non-normative
part
<KJanowic> Great!
DanhLePhuoc_: Raul raised another issue with the DUL alignment
@RaulGarciaCastro do you want to comment on this?
<DanhLePhuoc_> ask RaulGarciaCastro
<KJanowic> +1
RaulGarciaCastro: If we don't have DUL as non-normative, we
need a term to link events
KJanowic: if this removes the relation between Stimulus and
Observation we need to introduce a relation and align it with
the dul:includesEvent property
+1 KJanowic
<RaulGarciaCastro> This is the proposal I wrote in the issue
tracker: “* To create in SSN the ssn:isStimulatedBy property
between ssn:Observation and ssn:Stimulus.
<RaulGarciaCastro> * To state in the SSN-DUL alignment that
ssn:isStimulatedBy is a subproperty of dul:includesEvent.”
@RaulGarciaCastro action item for you?
<KJanowic> Yes, I can look into the Stimulus part. I agree with
Raul that we need ssn-local relations
we vote after the solution is presented
<KJanowic> first the proposal then the vote :-)
<DanhLePhuoc_> PROPOSAL: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a
solution(adding some properties) resolve ISSUE-117
<mlefranc> +1
+1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<DanhLePhuoc_> +1
<SimonCox> We also briefly discussed on the list the idea of a
:stimulusTime property (which also helps tease out some of the
details needed for forecasts, where the stimulus is some
current and past observations)
PROPOSAL: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
07: 39 mlefranc
PROPOSED: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
<roba> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<mlefranc> +1
<DanhLePhuoc_> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
Resolved: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
<KJanowic> +1
<SimonCox> This is just a vote for Raul to do some more work?
<SimonCox> More like an ACTION
<mlefranc> yes
Action: RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
<trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve issue-117 [on Raúl García Castro - due
2017-03-21].
mlefranc: Simon had a proposal for a stimulusTime, can you
outline that
SimonCox: stimulustime will be before the present time, so it
is a forecast.
<KJanowic> hmmm
SimonCox: stimulustime will be the beginning of the
observation, the resulttime at the end, the phenomenontime in
between
KJanowic: not sure about that, because the stimulustime may
start the sensor in an implementation
<KJanowic> I like the idea but I would need to think more about
it. The stimulus is the thing that you cannot yet talk about
(in contrast to the observation)
SimonCox: sometimes you don't know when the stimulus occurred,
OWA. it makes activities sensing more like an event in the
sense of an activity, with a start time and end time
KJanowic: OWA is not an excuse for delaying the effort of
modelling. Simply because it is not there, it is not wrong, but
we should not give the OWA as an excuse for a lack of precision
in the model
<DanhLePhuoc_> KJanowic:
DanhLePhuoc_: Antoine made a comment on the mailing list.
Modelling is one thing, the implementer will make decisions on
how it goes into the database.
KJanowic: you will never model humans have three hands, but be
ok with it, because only two go in the database
ssn:startTime and ssn:endTime [25]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
track/issues/145
[25] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/145
<RaulGarciaCastro> [26]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
issues/123
[26] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/123
RaulGarciaCastro: more important than this issue is the related
issue 123
RaulGarciaCastro: instead of a coherent set of properties for
time, we currently have 6 different ways of attaching time
KJanowic: SSN imports SOSA, so we should have a proposal to
align all six
mlefranc: going through the emails, also kerry agrees in
deprecating the old terms and avoid introducing new terms in
SSN new
mlefranc: what are we do with the four remaining properties
that are related to time
mlefranc: delete start time and delete end time
<KJanowic> I can look into this
just raise action
<KJanowic> create action, no vote needed
<KJanowic> the vote will be on whatever the action results in
Action: KJanowic will address the ISSUES relevant for temporal
properties in both SOSA/SSN
<trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Will address the issues
relevant for temporal properties in both sosa/ssn [on Krzysztof
Janowicz - due 2017-03-21].
<SimonCox> See [27]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
issues/151 "Do we need :stimulusTime property for observation?"
[27] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/151
<SimonCox> (new issue I just created)
<DanhLePhuoc_> Specgen doesn’t generate ssn:hasProperty and
ssn:produces [28]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/
105
[28] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/105
<roba> Kjanowic: note QB4ST has a need to specify envelopes for
dimensions, which may be temporal - would appreciate a review
of that in light of your proposed solution.
Specgen doesn’t generate ssn:hasProperty and ssn:produces
[29]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/105
[29] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/105
<mlefranc> delay ?
<KJanowic> Thanks a lot roba, I will come back to you and simon
wrt this.
<KJanowic> So how well does specgen really work for us?
CLOSE ISSUE-105
<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-105.
<mlefranc> we could use the generic tool [30]https://
ns.inria.fr/sparql-template/
[30] https://ns.inria.fr/sparql-template/
<DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn with prov-o [31]https://www.w3.org/
2015/spatial/track/issues/53
[31] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/53
Align ssn with prov-o [32]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
issues/53
[32] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/53
ahaller2: proposed to not use specGen in the next iteration of
the WD, but issue-105 was addressed
<KJanowic> Do we need an alignment to prov?
DanhLePhuoc_: will PROV-O be in the normative part or
non-normative part
<KJanowic> same here!
RaulGarciaCastro: question is if we need these alignments?
KJanowic: we were picky about the sensor part, not do OBOE, but
then PROV-O. That would be strange.
<KJanowic> then lets vote on this like we voted on OBOE
<KJanowic> Agree with ahaller2
ahaller2: agree with what was said before, and postpone the
topic to next week
mlefranc: alignments in non-normative parts of the document
because they are W3C standards.
<DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn with rdf datacube [33]https://
www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/55
[33] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/55
ahaller2: proposal to postpone the rdf datacube one until kerry
is here
Align ssn with the ontology developed for the coverage deliverable
[34]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/57
[34] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/57
<SimonCox> [35]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/150
[36]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_OBOE
[35] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/150
[36] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_OBOE
<mlefranc> agree with jano
KJanowic: understand mlefranc's argument that these are W3C
rec's, but the argument earlier was made in regards to OBOE,
that we just don't have time.
KJanowic: don't do things too hasty
roba: not sure how much overlap there is between coverage and
SSN WD
<SimonCox> Its not actually so hard.
roba: QB4ST is just an early proposal
<KJanowic> I would like that
maxime: will there be a follow up group?
<DanhLePhuoc_> Align ssn to implement best practices as defined
in our BP deliverable. [37]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
track/issues/42
[37] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/42
ahaller2: there may be a follow up group, but even if not, we
can still have a CG
<mlefranc> i don't think we voted against an oboe alignment
<KJanowic> which vote?
<KJanowic> we did not vote against the oboe alignment, correct?
SimonCox: we have not voted on OBOE
ahaller2: There was no vote yet on OBOE not being part of the
document
<KJanowic> IMHO, this is a misunderstanding. Can I address this
briefly?
KJanowic: OBOE alignment is important. Last time we had very
picky discussions around OBOE. The argument that was brought up
that we don't have time.
Implementation of Platform resolution [38]https://www.w3.org/2015/
spatial/track/actions/275 and close of issue [39]https://www.w3.org/
2015/spatial/track/issues/88
[38] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/275
[39] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/88
ahaller2: There is a proposal in wiki and today, we try to vote
and close the issue
<mlefranc> +1 to close and raise new
<KJanowic> +1 to close 88
ahaller2: Kerry has some concerns, but Armin suggested Kerry to
raises such concerns as issues
<ahaller2> KJanowic: the original claim was that SOSA platform
and SSN platform are different, and we solved this specific
issue very carefully
<ahaller2> KJanowic: if we don't clean up, and other issues
that radiate out of it, we can't move on
Krzysztof Janowicz & Danh Le Phuoc reporting on progress on ACTION
278, ACTION 279, ACTION 280
<ahaller2> [40]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/
278
[40] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/278
<mlefranc> (can we close the action that was assigned to me ?)
<ahaller2> @mlefranc which one?
<mlefranc> @armin ow ok it was assigned to kerry. still action
270 should be closed
<ahaller2> close action-270
<trackbot> Closed action-270.
<KJanowic> [41]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/618
[41] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/618
<ahaller2> [42]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/
279
[42] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/279
<ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: still working on 279, only done
locally
<ahaller2> [43]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/
280
[43] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/280
KJanowic: when my pull request is accepted, it will update the
document
Discussion of options for the modelling of Processes/Procedures in
SOSA and SSN as on the wiki at: [44]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
wiki/Procedure_Process
[44] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
<ahaller2> [45]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89
[45] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/89
ahaller2: this item was raised a long time ago
<KJanowic> and because process means something else in sensorML
(e.g., a sensor)
<ahaller2> KJanowic: some of those things have been resolved.
Procedure is the like the cooking recipe, i.e. it is the
workflow plan
<ahaller2> @DanhLePhuoc_ please don't forget to scribe
KJanowic: the Procedure in SOSA already address some features
of the Process-related properties
<KJanowic> observation, sampling, actuation are events
(processes). they all follow procedures, e.g., how to measure
air temperature (not one specific but measuring air temperate
in general)
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Rename Process in SSN to Procedure
<mlefranc> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> Which of the 4 options in the wiki?
<KJanowic> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> 0
<SimonCox> +1
<roba> +1
+1
Resolved: Rename Process in SSN to Procedure
<KJanowic> 3 has the subclassing 1 does not, right?
KJanowic: Option 3 is more conservative but Option 1 is also ok
<KJanowic> but option 1 generates different entailment
mlefranc: Option 1 is simpler to understand
<KJanowic> ok, fine with me. I agree with maxime and ahaller
ahaller2: Note that we have owl:equivalentClass/Property in
other classes as well
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as
of [46]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
[46] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
<mlefranc> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<KJanowic> +1 (as long as we revisit/change the actual code
used on the wiki)
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
+1
<roba> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ahaller2> ahaller2: yes, code has changed since then and needs
to be revisited
Resolved: Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as of
[47]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
[47] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
Action: ahaller2 to implement Option 1: Rename Process to
Procedure as of [48]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Procedure_Process
[48] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
<trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Implement option 1: rename
process to procedure as of [49]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
wiki/procedure_process [on Armin Haller - due 2017-03-21].
[49] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/procedure_process
Discussion of Sampling [50]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Sampling ISSUE-92 [51]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
[50] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Sampling
[51] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
<KJanowic> yay!
<phila> issue-92?
<trackbot> issue-92 -- Why do we need Sampling in the simple
core? -- raised
<trackbot> [52]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
[52] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/92
<KJanowic> Note that this will also trigger: [53]https://
github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/
22d923b884d013cd72864f4bfabf350e71c770a0
[53]
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/22d923b884d013cd72864f4bfabf350e71c770a0
SimonCox: Sample is involved in major cases on observations,
especially in scientific publications
<KJanowic> my proposal: move fig 1 to sosa, fig2 to ssn. rename
samplingactivity to sampling and samplingdevice to sampler (?)
<KJanowic> imho, waterbodies are a great example why we should
have more about samples in sosa
<KJanowic> we have this raul
<KJanowic> we did this already
<ahaller2> RaulGarciaCastro: is Sample not a subclass of
FeatureOfInterest
<ahaller2> SimonCox: yes, could be
<KJanowic> Simon, we have this already
<KJanowic> we addressed this in december
<ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: Why is Sampling in the SOSA core?
<ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: in Schema.org they already have an IoT
core
<ahaller2> DanhLePhuoc_: maybe makes SOSA more complicated
iot.schema.org
<mlefranc> at first sight, sampling seems too similar to
sensing or actuating
<KJanowic> iot.schema.org -- > does not work for me
<mlefranc> [54]http://iot.webschemas.org/
[54] http://iot.webschemas.org/
mlefranc: Sampling might confuse the developer with measurement
<ahaller2> KJanowic: subclass relation should be part of SSN
KJanowic: Note that,we don't subclass in SOSA
KJanowic: I agree with the argument to keep SOSA simple, but, I
suggest to add 1-2 classes to address scientific data
<KJanowic> +1 to roba, makes sense to me
<RaulGarciaCastro> That’s it!
<KJanowic> we have the sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest for sosa and
can add the subclass for ssn
<KJanowic> also keep in mind that in science you very, very
often work with samples of samples. more specifically every
time you use data from somebody else
<RaulGarciaCastro> KJanowic, That’s the good thing of having
the subclass and the isSampleOf property from and to the FoI
<KJanowic> yes!
Armin: in terms of subclass, we have ruled out the using
subclasses
<mlefranc> +1
<ahaller2> Ahaller: culture heritage domain is using sampling
quite extensively
<roba> +1
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SOSA core
<mlefranc> +1
<KJanowic> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> -1
<SimonCox> +1
KJanowic: we should defer the discussion on how to it another,
we should focus to voting whether to include Sampling in SOSA
core
<ahaller2> +1
<roba> +1
0
<KJanowic> I would disagree here
<KJanowic> we use sampling in IoT
<roba> Raul - with the right pattern, sampling looks the same -
you can look at the data and work out its smapling..
RaulGarciaCastro: I prefer to see it in SSN
<KJanowic> but you would be okay, right? so we have a majority
for inclusion.
<SimonCox> SOSA also provides 'tags' for schema.org
applications, not just WoT
KJanowic: we do a lot of uses case here in the WoT, we use the
Sampling the heavily
<ahaller2> zakim close queue
<RaulGarciaCastro> My -1 was just to force the discussion, I
can live with the 0
<KJanowic> thanks!
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SSN
<mlefranc> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<ahaller2> +1
DanhLePhuoc_: I can live with it
<roba> -1
<KJanowic> +1 (if is is also in SOSA :-))
<KJanowic> I see roba's argument we had a positive vote on
having it in SOSA
<KJanowic> +1
<SimonCox> +1 (by import from SOSA)
<KJanowic> +1
<ahaller2> PROPOSED: Include Sampling in SOSA
<KJanowic> Agree with roba
<KJanowic> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> 0
<KJanowic> again, agree with roba
0
<roba> +1
<mlefranc> +1
<SimonCox> +1
Resolved: Include Sampling in SOSA
Action: simon to implement proposal on wiki in SOSA
<trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Implement proposal on wiki in
sosa [on Simon Cox - due 2017-03-21].
<KJanowic> Thanks everybody for the very constructive 2 hours!
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<KJanowic> bye bye
<roba> Bye
<ahaller2> bye
<ahaller2> type RRSAgent, draft minutes
Summary of Action Items
1. [55]mlefranc will draft a note on Forecasting to address
ISSUE-82
2. [56]RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
3. [57]KJanowic will address the ISSUES relevant for temporal
properties in both SOSA/SSN
4. [58]ahaller2 to implement Option 1: Rename Process to
Procedure as of https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Procedure_Process
5. [59]simon to implement proposal on wiki in SOSA
Summary of Resolutions
1. [60]Forecasting will not be an explicit class and
associated properties in the SSN document, but we include a
note how forecasting can be modelled with existing
properties
2. [61]RaulGarciaCastro to propose a solution(adding some
properties) resolve ISSUE-117
3. [62]Rename Process in SSN to Procedure
4. [63]Option 1: Rename Process to Procedure as of https://
www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Procedure_Process
5. [64]Include Sampling in SOSA
--
Phil Archer
Data Strategist, W3C
http://www.w3.org/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 08:07:05 UTC