[Minutes-COV] 2016-06-01

The minutes of last week's coverages sub group call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwcov-minutes with a text snapshot below

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

        Spatial Data on the Web Coverages Sub Group Teleconference

01 Jun 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwcov-irc

Attendees

    Present
           kerry, eparsons, Duo, ByronCinNZ, billroberts, Maik

    Regrets
           PhilA

    Chair
           Bill Roberts

    Scribe
           eparsons

Contents

      * [3]Topics
      * [4]Summary of Action Items
      * [5]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <billroberts> do please join the webex if you haven't already -
    details on the meeting page
    [6]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telec
    on20160601

       [6] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20160601

    <scribe> scribe: eparsons

    <billroberts> [7]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-sdwcov-minutes

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-sdwcov-minutes

    billroberts Minutes of last meeting

    <kerry> +1

    <scribe> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

    <Duo> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

    <billroberts>
    [8]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    <billroberts>
    [9]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telec
    on20160601

       [9] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20160601

    billroberts first item last call update

    billroberts Landsat data in RDF, update from Reading on
    coverage json, roba data cube talk

    <billroberts>
    [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Coverage_draft_require
    ments

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

    billroberts kerry & maik thanks for comments on this

    kerry not complete - will do more

    billroberts more comments on reqs welcome

    kerry Req alignment with others should not be there ?

    other standards that is

    <billroberts> this was: 5.23 Spatial data modeling issues
    solved in existing models shall be considered for adoption,
    e.g. O&M, SoilML or the OGC coverage model.

    kerry Add to plenary meeting agenda ?

    billroberts sounds like good idea - generic afterall

    kerry maybe others like that ?

    billroberts Multi-language for example ?

    kerry - No :-) req for ontology developed here needs language
    options

    billroberts Go through at look for other generics to discuss at
    plenary

    <billroberts>
    [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_t
    echnical_approach

      [11] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_technical_approach

    billroberts link is attempt to bring together work so far from
    others

    billroberts Need some metadata for extracts + actual data
    (domain)

    billroberts metadata in RDF

    billroberts Real data in more compact form - e.g. json array ?

    billroberts or image data

    billroberts RDF metadata - use json-ld for context

    billroberts supply metadata first and then data 2 steps

    billroberts Different levels of metadata for collections of
    objects

    billroberts Should in terms of scope select only some use cases

    <billroberts>
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_t
    echnical_approach

      [12] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_technical_approach

    roba list is better than req doc - 3 concerns relate to
    information needed - where is the metdata ?

    rob - attached to service, dataset, element etc ?

    roba - need to be consistent - currently different in different
    places

    roba - also whats the best encoding ?

    roba - 3 separate concerns more accessible to people

    roba Different viewpoints result in different metadata

    roba Find way to express expectation from different viewpoints

    roba Datacube approach leads to RDF working well for metadata

    roba - Hard to know scope currently

    billroberts Fair point - jumble of req at the moment - open to
    ideas to bring structure

    billroberts Question ? 2 stage approach to retrieve extract -
    1) metadata 2) payload

    billroberts Want to know what you are reviving first ...

    billroberts Makes sense ??

    kerry - thinks important not sure yet ...

    billroberts Common with geo data - geometry in GML for example

    billroberts Need to know if the extract is the one you want and
    how to deal with it...

    kerry Philosophical point of difference between data and
    metadata ...

    kerry Don't wants thinks to be seen as different docs ?

    Maik I agree OGC for example as coverage doc - coverage json
    does not have distinction

    billroberts based on Maik approach range has separate id not in
    same json file

    Maik separate id's don't break linking ?

    roba Data & metadata as single entity but there might be a
    metadata view of the entity

    roba trick is do id of subsets

    roba services are key to this

    roba richer encoding makes this work

    ByronCinNZ Metadata can be both with data and separate - should
    support both views

    kerry analogy Dublin Core & RDF comes from html meta tag
    worldview - which failed !

    billroberts See data as one big graph separation from a
    practical perspective to allow delivery of data

    Maik What about coverages in different formats, so different
    metadata embedding ?

    billroberts Our object is to find one way or a family of ways
    to deliver coverages ?

    roba Search for a item on ebay, search engine provides ebay
    object but with links to other things aswell

    roba Metadata may be v.large graph needs different views in
    that case - one view for simple.. another view more complex -
    nice if these consistent

    roba Are there canonical views e.g Dublin Core ? - recommended
    views e.g dimensions ?

    billroberts useful discussion thank you..

    billroberts Full spectrum of coverage data complicated , don't
    need to do all - but key are gridded coverages & point clouds
    x,y,z,t etc

    <kerry> +1

    billroberts Question - should we aim just at these ?

    +1

    <Duo> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <Maik> +1

    <roba> +1

    billroberts Refining that a bit - regular grid only ?

    roba One case alone dangerous from a info modelling pint of
    view

    kerry opposite view - need to focus gridded cases dominate,
    point clouds maybe but no more..

    <roba> feature,t

    billroberts Grids can do time series... degenerate case

    Maik agree x,y,z,t OK not composite x,y vectors for example

    billroberts Makes sense to be extensible, optimised for point
    clouds later... built on grids

    <kerry> +1

    roba Time dimension makes all degenerate grids ?

    roba Hierarchical best practice is what I'm looking for

    billroberts special case that we are trying to solve > million
    more points

    billroberts Time nearly up... will try to work on a updated
    versions of doc

    billroberts improve requirements based on this discussion

    <roba> Time dimension makes all degenerate grids => using
    patterns i time dimension for x,y would address regular grids

    billroberts Need to work between calls

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [13]Approve last week's minutes

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 6 June 2016 09:11:35 UTC