- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 00:40:19 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Maxime and Danh!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT IG - TF-LD
01 Sep 2017
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Danh_Le_Phuoc, Maria_Poveda,
Maxime_Lefrancois, Michael_Koster, Achille_Zappa
Regrets
Chair
Danh
Scribe
mlefranc, DanhLePhuoc, kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]SSN-driven alignment proposal (presented by Maxime
Lefrançois, Editor of SSN)
2. [5]Some strategies for ontology reuse on alignment
with TD (presented by María Poveda)
3. [6]Discuss on Ontology Alignment strategy for TD
(focus on Linked Data perspective)
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: mleframc
<DanhLePhuoc> agenda: Agenda
[9]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Linked_Data_and_Semantic_P
rocessing_WebConf
[9] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Linked_Data_and_Semantic_Processing_WebConf
<inserted> scribenick: DanhLePhuoc
SSN-driven alignment proposal (presented by Maxime Lefrançois, Editor
of SSN)
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
mlefranc: td pr 28
... wot td repository
... turtle document
... will go through it later
... second one is 348 on wot repo
<inserted> scribenick: DanhLePhuoc
two PRs for last assigned to :mlefranc
[10]https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/348
[10] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/348
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
mlefranc: wot version of ontology used
<DanhLePhuoc> and
[11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/28
[11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/28
mlefranc: everything has a unique identity
... w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#SSNSystem
... sensor, actuator
<inserted> scribenick: DanhLePhuoc
mlefranc: is comparing side by side definition of Thing from
SSN and TD
and the interaction patterns proposed by both
the Turle form of alignment of TD&SSN is proposed in
[12]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/28
[12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/28
mlefranc: this alignment will import both SSN and TD
<kaz> [13]https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#SSNProperty
[13] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#SSNProperty
<kaz> [14]http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot#Thing
[14] http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot#Thing
MariaPoveda: TD is developed by VICINITY project because it was
needed to sake of time
then it was adopted by the group
it's some how reduced to minimal form
TD creator acknowledged there differences with SSN
kaz who is the main editor?
MariaPoveda: me
<kaz> (and some more contributors)
<inserted> scribenick: mlefranc
DanhLePhuoc: should alignments be part of normative or
non-normative parts of the document (including examples) ?
<DanhLePhuoc> scribe mlefranc
MariaPoveda: I think the TD needs to be minimal, but we do not
restrict alignments to other ontologies
... on the other hand the one to SSN should be standard,
... although maybe not directly in the ontology document
DanhLePhuoc: propose ideas and votes need to be part of a WG
call isn't it ?
kaz: yes, but you can create an issue during this call, and
explain it during the main call
Some strategies for ontology reuse on alignment with TD (presented by
María Poveda)
MariaPoveda: <starting her presentation>
... three types of reusing ontologies:
... 1. import ontology (owl:import), 2. declare submodel of the
ontology, 3. reuse the URIs of the ontology
... owl:imports is strong ontological commitment, you import
all the axioms of the imported document, and this is transitive
... if the ontology server of the imported ontology fails, then
everything breaks
... you can't delete/override any of the axioms in the imported
ontology
2. declare submodel is copying definitions and axioms of
another ontology,
scribe: a bit more difficult to implement, more robust to
ontology server failures, less robust when changes in the
imported ontology occur -> they are not propagated
automatically
... for example in VICINITY our ontology copies the axioms and
the definitions of the ssn-system module (see SOSA/SSN spec)
... 3. just reuse URIs of the reused ontology
... define your own concept, and link it to an external concept
using axioms such as rdfs:subClassOf or owl:equivalentProperty,
...
... foe example, VICINITY extends the foaf:Person and defines:
core:DigitalUser rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Person
... conclusions: combine 1, 2, and 3, stronger reuse when the
external ontology is trustworthy (W3C > government/project >
person)
DanhLePhuoc: would you make the TD ontology import any ontology
at all ?
... ssn, schema.org, ...
MariaPoveda: maybe not directly in the TD ontology, maybe as
mlefranc said: better in an external document
... I doubt that external ontologies (little or big) will be
all implemented in TD implementations
DanhLePhuoc: I would suggest that we add example on how to use
the TD ontology together with external ontologies
... we need some better synchronization between the WG and the
IG
... with respect to TD ontology
Discuss on Ontology Alignment strategy for TD (focus on Linked Data
perspective)
MichaelKoster: in iot.schema.org we are pretty well aligned
with TD,
... in both cases we need at some point to use other ontologies
to describe
... for example how a device acts on some feature of interest,
etc.
... so let's keep new ontologies lightweight, and encourage the
reuse of other existing formal ontologies
... maybe in a lightweight and reduced syntax such as JSON doc
or so
... So: it's not so important to prevent terms conflicting in
different namespaces
... the point is to see how these ontologies complement each
other
DanhLePhuoc: iot.schema.org is impressive in how it combines
different vocabularies and try to harmonize a terminology
... for domain ontologies conflicting on some terms
... we can't prevent people from developing new ontologies, the
key is to help developers navigate through all the formal
models, and choose the right way to model things
... let's create a taskforce with people from semweb,
iot.schema.org, dev,
MariaPoveda: question is how to coordinate the addition of new
semantics in the TD ontology
... what would be the freedom of this taskforce
DanhLePhuoc: maybe just propose new use cases and make them
accepted first
kaz: basic mechanism of taskforces is that subgroup can make
some decision in the taskforce call and bring it to the next
call of the whole group
... for approval by the whole group
DanhLePhuoc: we haven't decided officially what we need to push
to the main group, let's vote for the existence of the
alignment and the fact it must be in an external document next
week ?
<kaz> ACTION: maxime to clarify the proposal for the next IG
call [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-minutes.html#action01]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Clarify the proposal for the
next ig call [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2017-09-08].
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: maxime to clarify the proposal for the next IG
call [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-minutes.html#action01]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2017/09/01-wot-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([18]CVS log)
$Date: 2017/09/01 15:36:24 $
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 1 September 2017 15:41:29 UTC