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

Re: [Minutes SSN] 2017 03 15

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:58:52 +0000
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fe28a28e-fb54-2fe8-abe0-dff72e2726ce@w3.org>
Done

On 20/03/2017 07:09, Kerry Taylor wrote:
> 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 13:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 March 2017 13:59:07 UTC