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

RE: [Minutes SSN] 2017 03 15

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:09:39 +0000
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SYXPR01MB1536E63D649149FD72423025A43A0@SYXPR01MB1536.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
My regrets in advance  were not recorded in the minutes -- could it  be included please? -thks, Kerry


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2017 7:07 PM
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [Minutes SSN] 2017 03 15

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 Monday, 20 March 2017 07:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 March 2017 07:10:22 UTC