- 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>
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