Re: [Minutes-BP] 216-10-26

Sorry for not being able to attend yesterday.

On the discussion about "Most BP titels are not really 'spatial'. Which other communities have been successful with these practices?":

I think these were really two separate aspects. 

One was the observation that the BP titles are often not really specific to spatial aspects. I agree that there is no point to change the title just to include "spatial" in it, in particular, if the more detailed text provides the info why this BP is important for spatial data.

I understood the second part to be more about the "big picture" and going beyond evidence of implementing individual BPs by someone. We can argue why/whether each of the BPs make sense from a technical perspective, but a more general question is whether there are communities/organisations that have adopted large parts of the BPs and have benefited from it. Are the BPs called "best practices" because there is a convincing story or because there is a W3C and - in the SDW case - OGC logo on the documents? That is at least how I understood this comment and I think it is a valid point. I also think that it is more related to the DWBP than the SDWBP, but since these are the foundation for the SDW BPs the question is relevant for us, too.

Best regards,
Clemens


> On 26 Oct 2016, at 17:02, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Predictably enough, the minutes of today's BP call are at https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.
> 
> Thanks to Andrea for scribing.
> 
> 
> 
>          Spatial Data on the Web BP Sub Group Teleconference
> 
> 26 Oct 2016
> 
>   [2]Agenda
> 
>      [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20161026

> 
>   See also: [3]IRC log
> 
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-irc

> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>          Linda, Bart, frans, ScottSimmons, AndreaPerego, phila,
>          MattPerry, billroberts
> 
>   Regrets
>          Jeremy, Byron, Clemens, Ed, Kerry, Payam
> 
>   Chair
>          Linda
> 
>   Scribe
>          AndreaPerego
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * [4]Topics
>         1. [5]Approve last telecom minutes
>         2. [6]Patent call
>         3. [7]Spatial vs geospatial scope / outreach to non-geo
>            spatial communities
>         4. [8]Comments from INSPIRE workshop
>     * [9]Summary of Action Items
>     * [10]Summary of Resolutions
>     __________________________________________________________
> 
>   <Linda> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwbp-minutes

> 
>     [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwbp-minutes

> 
>  Approve last telecom minutes
> 
>   +1
> 
>   <Linda> +0 was absent
> 
>   <frans> It says you where there Linda
> 
>   <ScottSimmons> +1
> 
>   <Linda> +1
> 
>   <frans> You even were scribe
> 
>   RESOLUTION: Last telecon minutes approved
> 
>   <frans> +0 (really was not there)
> 
>   <Linda> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

> 
>  Patent call
> 
>  Spatial vs geospatial scope / outreach to non-geo spatial communities
> 
>   <Linda>
>   [13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/

>   0099.html
> 
>     [13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0099.html

> 
>   Linda: The question is whether we want to be make sure that
>   guidance on non-geo spatial data is provided.
>   ... this is actually also in the WG name.
>   ... We have some non-geo UCs.
>   ... But we don't have non-geo people active in the group.
>   Danger is that we just focus on *geo* spatial data.
> 
>   <frans> In the charter it says: ¨'Geo' is not the only spatial
>   data. In healthcare, for example, polygons may represent
>   pathology tissue segmentation extractions that can be subjected
>   to spatial analysis. Whilst prioritizing geospatial use cases,
>   in so far as is practical, the WG will take account of the
>   needs of other users of spatial technologies.¨
> 
>   Linda: The idea is to try to contact non-geo people to
>   contribute.
>   ... WDYT?
> 
>   <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Erich Bremer et al
> 
>   phila: The idea of using "spatial" instead of geo came from a
>   W3C member (Eric Bremer) who has not been active for some time.
>   I can contact him and tell him to speak up.
>   ... I can also contact other people - and other WG members can
>   do the same.
>   ... If the contacted people respond, fine, otherwise we move
>   on.
> 
>   Linda: Narrowing the scope to *geo* spatial is not desirable.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> Is "spatial" an issue beyondn more
>   possibilities for CRS?
> 
>   frans: People doing spatial modelling are not using geo
>   standards - so this is one of the target communities.
>   ... good to have a scope as large as possible.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> But should they be using geo standards, many of
>   which are quite general to spatial dimensions?
> 
>   frans: A question to phila: Are there any W3C groups we can
>   outreach.
> 
>   phila: There are some - as the Geolocation API - but they do
>   not seem to be in our target.
> 
>   frans: We can have a chat with the UC contributors, telling
>   them we have a new version of the document, ask them whether it
>   fullfills their need. But besides that, difficult to say how to
>   accomplish that.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> Question: are we considering real world but not
>   geocentric space, or also considering conceptual spaces (e.g.
>   compositional space)?
> 
>   ScottSimmons: Sometimes data consumers use geospatial data
>   without recognising they are spatials (e.g., building data).
>   ... I'll be meeting in 2 weeks with buildingsmart international
>   and I can try and see if they can provide feedback.
> 
>   <Linda> buildingsmart international
> 
>   frans: It would be definitely interesting to have them
>   involved.
> 
>   <frans>
>   [14]http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/future/linked-data/linked

>   -data
> 
>     [14] http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/future/linked-data/linked-data

> 
>   joshlieberman: Anyone working on engineering diagrams can
>   benefit from a general geo framework. Anyway, while working at
>   the conceptual level, the critical bit is defining the relevant
>   subset of a general framework, providing a different context to
>   the defined concepts (e.g., CRSs),
> 
>   Linda: Can you check the CRS part of the BP and see which
>   changes need to be done?
> 
>   joshlieberman: [agrees]
> 
>   frans: Another case is base data, where they also are trying to
>   model geo stuff as geometries.
>   ... So, also here the input from the geo perspective would be
>   useful.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> AndreaPerego - note is reasonably accurate.
>   Thanks.
> 
>   <phila> phila: Yes, SVG has geometry but it's the geometry of
>   the display screen.
> 
>   frans: About other W3C groups, some of them they use notions as
>   geometry, and it may be worth to ensure alignment.
> 
>   Linda: [mentioning the SVG group]
> 
>   <joshlieberman> As I recall, Takagi has been advocating for
>   better CRS support in SVG but hasn't gotten complete traction.
> 
>  Comments from INSPIRE workshop
> 
>   See thread:
>   [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/

>   0103.html
> 
>     [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0103.html

> 
>   Linda: We have a new BP version, and the idea is to release new
>   versions on a regular basis.
>   ... One of the inputs to be taken into account comes from the
>   INSPIRE workshop.
>   ... Clemens highligheted in the mail below two comments:
>   ... "Most BP titels are not really 'spatial'. Which other
>   communities have been successful with these practices?" - It
>   would provide substance to the claim that we recommended
>   practices are indeed "best" practices, if we could point not
>   just to specific examples per BP, but point to cases where
>   other communities (than the SDI community) are already
>   following the DWBP principles and have measurably benefited
>   from this."
>   ... [going through the relevant BPs]
>   ... Their titles don't look specific to spatial data.
>   ... So, are there BPs in other communities we can re-use /
>   refer to?
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: I wanted to comment about the measurable impact
>   of BPs.
> 
>   <billroberts> sorry I'm late -figured better late than never
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: Actually, this may be difficult to measure - is
>   like measuring the impact of open data.
>   ... Maybe phila can comment on what has been done in the DWBP
>   WG.
> 
>   frans: I'm not sure I understand the comment reported by
>   Clemens. It's just about the title? We don't need to repeat
>   "spatial" in the title.
>   ... About checking BPs outside the geo domain, this should be a
>   job for the DWBP.
> 
>   Linda: Good point. But I think the main question is whether
>   there's evidence that other communities have been successful
>   with such BPs.
>   ... Also the DWBP should have such pointers.
> 
>   frans: So, probably is just a job for the DWBP WG.
>   ... We can just say that we extend what they did.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> Is this just a question of inserting "spatial"
>   into the titles in the BP where it is perhaps currently
>   implicit?
> 
>   Linda: Yes, joshlieberman, it may be just adding "spatial" in
>   the title.
> 
>   <frans> Would that not be redundant?
> 
>   joshlieberman: If this is the case, it's just a minor change to
>   be done.
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: I agree with both joshlieberman and frans.
>   Actually, if you look at some BPs, maybe they talk about
>   something general (e.g., use HTTP URIs), but how you do that is
>   in many case domain-dependent.
> 
>   Linda: Could you please elaborate?
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: [I'm afraid I missed it, Bart]
> 
>   <frans> It seems we are not clear on what the perceived problem
>   really was
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: frans's comment is spot on: "what are we trying
>   to solve?"
>   ... Putting a "spatial" tag does not ensure spatial people
>   understand that BP is for them.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> In the case of BP 12, it is actually
>   substantive to say that we recommend providing spatial search
>   of spatial data. Maybe not in other cases.
> 
>   <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to mention that the DWBP is
>   now running a survey to collect evidence for their BPs
> 
>   <frans> AndreaPerego: DWBP are running a survey.
> 
>   <frans> ... could we do the same?
> 
>   <frans> ... adding the word ´spatial´ to all titles would be
>   superfluous
> 
>   <frans> ... perhaps the commenters did not read the document
>   carefully enough
> 
>   <frans> Yes, web documents are not read in the same way as one
>   reads a book
> 
>   Linda: Yes, but probably it would be good that "how a BP
>   applies to me" be clear even though you start reading in the
>   middle.
> 
>   <phila> [16]Evidences form
> 
>     [16] http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/
> 
>   phi
> 
>   <phila> [17]evidence spreadhseet
> 
>     [17] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RhMGyG0ZYb73RkteYr39Xqt7f5xi0BUQmSiDqjkHOSA/edit#gid=853876221

> 
>   <joshlieberman> Interesting question - will there be links to
>   each individual BP - in which case having "spatial" in the
>   title might improve searchability.
> 
>   phila: Yes, the DWBP created an online form, and also a
>   spreadsheet.
>   ... it's quite complex.
>   ... It is worth collecting evidence for the SDW BP, but we have
>   to take into account the time we have (also considering the
>   extension).
> 
>   Linda: Second comment from Clemens:
>   ... Two additional BPs: a) How to reuse existing
>   infrastructure, easy steps for data providers. b) Queries are
>   important, but unclear how to query distributed data holdings
>   on the web since there are different APIs (SPARQL, etc)." - It
>   is worth checking, if these aspects are covered sufficiently
>   already or if we should add something, for example, additional
>   BPs as proposed
>   ... Quite interesting to me - we did a lot of work on this in
>   the Geonovum testbed.
>   ... Also the second one may be relevant - although not
>   completely clear to me.
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: I've shown something like that, and I also
>   wonder we need to have such BP.
> 
>   Linda: Tend to agree.
> 
>   joshlieberman: we can improve wording of existing BP's to
>   emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather than
>   (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well as to
>   emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just "API's"
> 
>   frans: Agree that "federated queries" use case can be added.
> 
>   Linda: Do you have something to contribute on this,
>   BartvanLeeuwen ?
> 
>   BartvanLeeuwen: Need to think about.
> 
>   <joshlieberman> My response: we can improve wording of existing
>   BP's to emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather
>   than (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well
>   as to emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just
>   "API's"
> 
>   <BartvanLeeuwen> thx linda
> 
>   <frans> Thanks, have a good day
> 
>   <joshlieberman> Thanks and bye.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
> Summary of Resolutions
> 
>    1. [18]Last telecon minutes approved
> 
>   [End of minutes]
>     __________________________________________________________
>

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 07:46:58 UTC