W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > September 2017

[TF-LD] minutes - 1 September 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 00:40:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XnUDpLsuHhzwW3qcS4rbWpadwHr+WM4pTvE6tOJOsUcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Maxime and Danh!




      [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


          Kaz_Ashimura, Danh_Le_Phuoc, Maria_Poveda,
          Maxime_Lefrancois, Michael_Koster, Achille_Zappa


          mlefranc, DanhLePhuoc, kaz


     * [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_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

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   mlefranc: wot version of ontology used

   <DanhLePhuoc> and

     [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

   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

   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
   ... 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 >

   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
   ... with respect to TD ontology

Discuss on Ontology Alignment strategy for TD (focus on Linked Data

   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,
   ... 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

   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

   <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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:16 UTC