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

Re: [Minutes] 2017 05 31

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 14:16:55 -0700
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bc9262f8-c04a-14db-177c-82ceff09d934@ucsb.edu>
> <tidoust> [KJanowic dropped from IRC but I would assume a +1
>    from him as well]

Yes, see:

>    <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]



On 05/31/2017 02:13 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> 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.
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 21:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 31 May 2017 21:17:32 UTC