[Minutes] 2017 05 31

The minutes of the Plenary call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-sdw-minutes with a snapshot below.

After a good deal of discussion, the WG voted to seek transition to 
Candidate Rec for SSN, however, this is conditional on a couple of minor 
changes being made and a note being sent to the WG when they have been.

 From that point, WG members have 5 days to raise any queries about that 
resolution. If none are forthcoming, the resolution stands.



           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

31 May 2017

    [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ahaller2, DanhLePhuoc, eparsons, KJanowic, Linda, phila,
           tidoust

    Regrets
           Andrea, Bill, Chris, Jeremy, Jon, Lars, Payam, Raúl,
           Scott

    Chair
           Ed

    Scribe
           phila

Contents

      * [3]Meeting Minutes
          1. [4]Preliminaries
          2. [5]Approve last week's minutes
          3. [6]Patent Call
          4. [7]Process to move SSN to Candidate Rec
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Preliminaries

    [General chat about whether we are quorate]

    [PhilA expels Doug Shepers and Michael Cooper from WebEx]

Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [9]https://www.w3.org/2017/05/17-sdw-minutes

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2017/05/17-sdw-minutes

    <Linda> +0 was absent

    <eparsons> +1

    <mlefranc> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    0 Not present

    Resolved: Minutes of 17 May Approved

Patent Call

    <eparsons> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Process to move SSN to Candidate Rec

    eparsons: Invites Armin to describe where we are.

    ahaller2: Apologises for the short notice.
    … We have had the wide review, we had several comments that we
    have acted upon.
    … We have based our Exit Criteria on the Time Ontology one
    … Feedback received was very positive but asked for examples so
    we have included several now.
    … These are in an appendix. Still working on them.
    … Had different understandings even within the group as to how
    to use the ontology.
    … We'll add these modelling approaches to the examples.
    … Apart from that, limited changes since the previous WD
    … Fixed some minor errors.
    … Split out the systems capabilities module. Used to have
    limited implementation evidence in old SSN so we have flagged
    it as at risk. We can make it non-normative if no evidence.

    eparsons: There seems to be a lot of change going on.
    … How much is tidying up content and how much is significant.

    ahaller2: Changes in the last few minutes have been minor (hash
    for slash)
    … Making sections/sub sections etc.

    ahaller2: In the last 4 weeks, very few errors. Really all
    about the examples.

    eparsons: So the doc is stable

    ahaller2: Yes

    KJanowic: There hasn't been any work on the ontologies for
    weeks. We've been looking at the examples, the modules etc. Not
    the ontology

    <KJanowic> Yes, but you will see that these are examples,
    change logs, figures, etc

    <tidoust> Phil: Did you get feedback on the interleaving of
    SOSA and SSN?

    <tidoust> Armin: Not per se. There were several comments about
    the lack of examples, SOSA examples, but not on the
    presentation itself.

    <tidoust> ... We've had lengthy discussions in the subgroup
    about this.

    <tidoust> Phil: There's a reference to SSN system way before it
    gets defined. Please check.

    Linda: I've not been following closely, but to be clear, the
    last WD was on 4 May and you're saying that this new ED is not
    really different from the published WD.

    ahaller2: True.

    ahaller2: It feels different because the ToC looks so
    different, but if you do a diff on the doc, apart from the
    examples etc. you'll see little change.

    ahaller2: There were 2 errors fixed in the ontologies

    Linda: ReSpec is showing 2 warnings (security and HTTPS URLs)

    tidoust: You don't need one for this doc, I think. There isn't
    one in the Time Ontology either
    … And don't worry about the HTTPS thing - I'll fix that.

    mlefranc: I'd like to say to Linda that all of the wide review,
    we asked people to look at the ED, so they've seen the latest
    version

    [ssn-system is mentioned in 5.2.2 but not introduced by then so
    needs some explanation]

    mlefranc: Maybe we switch the horizontal sections around

    ahaller2: That would do it

    phila: What is the current status of implementations?

    ahaller2: We have some at GSA, who have implemented SOSA
    … couple of million samples there
    … Several members working on implementations. We know Siemens
    is looking intoimplementing it too.
    … we have the SSN Usage doc from earlier that needs updating
    … Only concern is around system capabilities
    … hence splitting it up.

    <Zakim> tidoust, you wanted to mention need to have producers
    and consumers in implementations

    KJanowic: What is the time line on the implementations? Esp
    given the direction on producers and consumers

    tidoust: Yes, the Director would like to see both sides. The
    time line is basically end of June.
    … If we resolve to publish CR now, it will take a couple of
    weeks to arrange the Director's call. CR must be at least 4
    weeks, so we would need an extension.
    … If we get one, it's going to be in a dormant mode, just to
    let the process run.

    <Zakim> mlefranc, you wanted to ask difference with dataset

    tidoust: You really need to end the active work by the end of
    June. You should be able to show progress with implementation
    by then

    mlefranc: Can I query the meaning of producers and consumers?
    So if we find evidence of producers, we need to find consumers
    of it?

    tidoust: Not necessarily of the same dataset

    mlefranc: There are lots of ways of using it

    tidoust: The 3rd bullet in the exit criteria might cover this??

    tidoust: If it's captured there, you're fine.

    mlefranc: if I develop an ontology that extends SOSA/SSN, does
    that count as an implementation?

    tidoust: Where would you do that? The Director is interested in
    what's in public and in software.

    mlefranc: We've got news from IETF to create a European
    standard based on SSN

    tidoust: If it's in the pipe, that's good, even if it's not
    completed.

    <ahaller2> +1 for mlefranc

    eparsons: A consumer doesn't have to be software or a service,
    it can be someone extending the ontology

    tidoust: It has to match the criteria in the document.

    KJanowic: Because this is an ontology, consumers will include
    other ontologies.

    tidoust: I don't see a problem with that.

    DanhLePhuoc: The WoT WG has been discussing this a lot
    … So does that show usage?
    … And it's also being looked at for iot.schema.org

    tidoust: The transition to Proposed Rec, the implementation
    should already be there.
    … Again, refer to the wording of the exit criteria [paraphrase]

    eparsons: So in terms of a vote this evening, what's the
    appropriate wording?

    <mlefranc> * /s/IETF/ETSI

    <tidoust> [I note there's a recent comment from Dirk Jan Venema
    that needs an answer too: [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/
    Public/public-sdw-comments/2017May/0024.html]

      [11] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2017May/0024.html]

    <mlefranc> * @tidoust --> we will make an example specifically
    to address his question

    phila: It might be... That the Editor's draft at @@@ be
    published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to, switching
    sections 5 and 6 around

    phila: It might be... That the Editor's draft at @@@ be
    published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to, switching
    sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be updated in
    line with advice from the Director

    KJanowic: If we're listing what will be done, then the examples
    in the appendix might be improved.

    <mlefranc> * but this is non normative section, tidoust said
    yesterday we can do it

    tidoust: That comment came today, it's going to be addressed.

    phila: Is that going to lead to a change?

    mlefranc: There's one use case here that means one of us can
    write a use case to cover this.

    phila: So you're talking about adding another example to the
    appendix?

    mlefranc: Yep.

    PROPOSED: That the Editor's draft at [12]http://w3c.github.io/
    sdw/ssn/ be published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to,
    switching sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be
    updated in line with advice from the Director

      [12] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

    PROPOSED: That the Editor's draft at [13]http://w3c.github.io/
    sdw/ssn/ be published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to,
    switching sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be
    updated in line with advice from the Director

      [13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

    <Zakim> tidoust, you wanted to insist once more on exit
    criteria just in case

    tidoust: Just to insist on the exit criteria once more. This is
    what the Director will look for - you'll have to prove it.

    <KJanowic> Thanks, we will look at the wording one more time

    tidoust: I had a call with the Director earlier today (about
    the Time Ontology) and he was asking about how each bullet
    would be proved.

    <ahaller2> [14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/

    ahaller2: I am worried by the 'and' there... that makes it
    difficult
    … If we look at the usage of the old one, evidence might be
    missing for some classes and properties
    … I'm worried about making it too hard.

    mlefranc: For the 2nd point, I'd say something like it's an OWL
    ontology - every class must not be equivalent to OWL nothing.
    … No 2 classes conflate and...
    … and in the 3rd bullet, 2nd sub bullet... I think it's implied
    … Since you can say that if a sub class is used, so is its
    parent class

    KJanowic: May I propose that we do the wordsmithing outside the
    meeting

    <tidoust> Phil: Changing the exit criteria is quite an
    important decision. The group has to be comfortable that the
    exit criteria can be met.

    <eparsons> I'm back I think...

    mlefranc: I'm not talking about modifying the exit criteria,
    just the way that people will understand what they say.
    … I'm fine with it, as long as we change in line with
    Director's adavice

    ahaller2: We don't want to change the exit criteria, Maxime was
    just saying that one point subsumes another.

    <KJanowic> [I have to teach a class in 5 min, if there would be
    a vote on moving SSN/SOSA to CR, I would vote +1]

    KJanowic: Maybe this due to the technical language that we're
    using. We have to show implementation evidence. We're
    discussing how to word what is there

    Linda: Are you confident that we can prove implementations?

    ahaller2: If it's 4 for each class or property, we might need
    to make some non-normative

    Linda: Then you might want to make those bits non-normative

    eparsons: If we progress this, you have a month to work on the
    implementations, during which time there is the potential that
    some bits may fall out.

    <tidoust> phil: If you say here are 4 consuming bits of
    software, and there's one class that is used only once, I doubt
    that would be a problem. The Director is able to make a
    judgement call.

    <tidoust> ... Goal is to prove usefulness.

    Linda: I don't fee that confident about voting on this. It
    feels a little last minute and rushed.
    … I don't want to stop it, but I'm not comfortable.

    eparsons: Well, you can vote zero.

    ahaller2: On Linda's comment - can we make it explicit that the
    WG has 5 days to comment on the vote?

    Linda: Can that go in the wording of the vote

    PROPOSED: That the Editor's draft at [15]http://w3c.github.io/
    sdw/ssn/ be published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to,
    switching sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be
    updated in line with advice from the Director. These changes to
    be made ASAP and the WG informed that it has been done. Any
    objection should be raised within 5 days of that notification.

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

    <ahaller2> +1

    <mlefranc> +1

    <eparsons> +0

    <Linda> +0

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    phila: Notes that Raúl sent a +1 in his mail

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <mlefranc> *(and two other +1 recorded in the mailing list)

    <tidoust> [KJanowic dropped from IRC but I would assume a +1
    from him as well]

    Resolved: That the Editor's draft at [16]http://w3c.github.io/
    sdw/ssn/ be published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to,
    switching sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be
    updated in line with advice from the Director. These changes to
    be made ASAP and the WG informed that it has been done. Any
    objection should be raised within 5 days of that notification.

      [16] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/

    eparsons: So Armin, the quicker you can get that done, the
    better. But it's still tight.

    ahaller2: I'll do it right after the call.

    eparsons: Any more questions?

    Linda: I think there were more on the mailing list?

    Linda: Bill supported it

    [17]Bill's vote

      [17] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017May/0257.html

    <joshlieberman> woo - hoo

    <ahaller2> thanks to everyone!

    eparsons: Good job, editors - lots of work has gone into this.

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <Linda> bye

    <ahaller2> bye

    <eparsons> night all !!

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [18]Minutes of 17 May Approved
     2. [19]That the Editor's draft at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
        ssn/ be published as a Candidate Recommendation subject to,
        switching sections 5 and 6 around, and the Exit Criteria be
        updated in line with advice from the Director. These
        changes to be made ASAP and the WG informed that it has
        been done. Any objection should be raised within 5 days of
        that notification.

Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 21:13:45 UTC