- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:11:26 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Today's minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes with the
text snapshot below.
The meeting discussed the large amount of work done on the BP doc.
It was agreed that there will be no meeting on 23rd or 30th December.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
02 Dec 2015
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151202
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
ClemensPortele, BartvanLeeuwen, eparsons, jtandy, phila,
DanhLePhuoc, Linda, MattPerry, ahaller2, kerry,
AndreaPerego, LarsG
Regrets
Payam, Simon, Scott, Alejandro, Bill, Rachel
Chair
Ed
Scribe
phil
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Last week's minutes
2. [6]Christmas is coming
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
<eparsons> scribe : phil
<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
<eparsons> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes
[9] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes
Last week's minutes
<jtandy> +1
<phila_> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
<ClemensPortele> +1
<Linda> +1
<phila_> phila: 0 Not present
<ahaller2> +1
<phila_> +1
<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
<eparsons> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<phila_> Resolution : Approve last week's minutes
<eparsons> Topic : BP Editors Update
<phila_> jtandy: Payam, Linda and I got together last week and
spent 8 hours working through stuff
<phila_> ... key point was that we reached consensus of what we
wanted to cover.Each came up with a similar set of BPs that we
want to cover
<phila_> jtandy: Want to thank Payam for hosting us at Uni
Surrey
<jtandy> file:///Users/jeremy/Workspace/sdw/bp/index.html
<jtandy> [11]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[11] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
<phila_> [12]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[12] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
<phila_> jtandy: I'll work through some of the main parts.
We've added to the intro and scope
<phila_> ... We're still in the process of putting our notes
into the doc. Some sections are in yellow which indicates that
it's a work in progress
<phila_> ... Yellow is really a note to the editors that we
need to do more
<jtandy> [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
<phila_> ... If we go to the BP Summary
<phila_> jtandy: In the BP summary, you'll see that we have 31
BPs
<phila_> ... in the main body of the doc is do adopt... each BP
follows the template that was put in place for DWBP
<phila_> ... So you'll see the description
jtandy: Evidence, how to test etc.
... One of the sections I'll mention now... we've included a
cross reference to the requirements in the UCR doc. Comments
welcome of courser
phila: Highlights the RFC 2119 keyword issue
jtandy: I don't think we need those keywords
<eparsons> phila: notes that dwbp have changed template for
BP's
jtandy: When we got together we looked at their benefit
clusters, it didn't look like a natural fit for our work.
... We feel we want to show that we're a specialisation and
don't think we need to follow that
eparsons: I like the structure you're using
... As long as we get a narrative going as well, I'm happy.
Usability from a dev POV is important
jtandy: One of the things we di on friday was to try and order
the sections, prioritising what we think people will want to
know forst.
... So let's talk about that order.
... First - identifiers
<eparsons> +1
jtandy: that's fundamentally different to the way SDIs work
... Next up - we thoughgt the next thing that people would
expect to hear was how to express your spatial data. So there's
a section on how to describe your geospatial things
... We had a long chat at TPAC and we said that all the stuff
that describes the non-spatial stuff is out of our scope, which
leaves the spatial relationship stuff
... Next thing is how to decribe temporal data
... What we decided was that we probably don't need a specific
section on temporal data in our doc, what we do have is
sections where our BPs give examples of how to use temporal
data
... Most of the time related stuff will be in the time
deluverable
... Then we have a little section on sensor data.
... Following that we move to the linking section and enabling
discovery.
... Then exposing through APIs
... The handling large data.
... but note that earlier sections talk about accessing larger
data sets through APIs etc. And that's how we can talk about
coverages.
<jtandy> [14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#requirements
[14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#requirements
jtandy: When we went through the UCR against the BPs that we've
defined, a lot weren't listed as things for the BP doc
... We've done the cross references there. Even where
sometehing wasn't a BP deliverable, we've included it where we
think it's relevant.
... The list of the BPs themselves is the heart of it.
<jtandy> [15]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
[15] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
jtandy: First BP is Use globally unique identifiers for
entity-level resources
<KJanowicz> I would propose so
jtandy: So question - do we want to 'force'people to use HTTP
URIs?
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to http
<KJanowicz> +1 for http
<Linda> +1 to http
<ClemensPortele> +1 for http(s)
<KJanowicz> exactly
eparsons: I'd say HTTP, that's what we're talking about
<MattPerry> +1 for http
<ahaller2> +1 for http
<KJanowicz> well for LD http and https will be the same
phila: Raises issue of HTTPS
<scribe> ACTION: archer to propose some wording around HTTPS cf
HTTP [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Propose some wording around
https cf http [on Phil Archer - due 2015-12-09].
BartvanLeeuwen: If we aren't going to recommend using HTTP,
then we should change the name of the group.
jtandy: The W3C rec is that you MUST use gloablly unique
identifiers, then that you SHOULD use HTTP
DanhLePhuoc: In spatial data, we're also talking about sensors
and IoT, they don't use HTTP necessarily.
... So are we limiting ourselves?
jtandy: I think when we're talking about identifiers, we're
saying that they should use those IDs, but not necessarily say
that they must always be in a resolvable situation.
DanhLePhuoc: In some smaller devices, they might use other
unique IDs, without binding to any protocol.#
jtandy: Like DOIs
<KJanowicz> there are URIs for DOIs
<jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to add issue to Best Practice 1
regarding use of HTTP URI or just globally unique identifier
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Add issue to best practice 1
regarding use of http uri or just globally unique identifier
[on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-12-09].
issue: Use of HTTP URIs or just globally unique identifiers
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-35 - Use of http uris or just globally
unique identifiers. Please complete additional details at
<[18]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/35/edit>.
[18] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/35/edit
<ClemensPortele> In which sense is a sensor "on the web", if it
does not use http(s)?
close action-108
<trackbot> Closed action-108.
<AndreaPerego> +1 to Clemens. If we are talking about spatial
data *on the Web*, then we're talking about HTTP(S)
KJanowicz: Everything I wanted to say is that the SemWeb
community is well aware of the HTTP/S issue. I think it's
important for us to stay in the LD paradigm and say that we
shoujld use HTTPS? URIs
<scribe> ACTION: Janowicw to sned us the info on HTTPS? in
SemWeb community [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Janowicw'. You can review and
register nicknames at
<[20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<scribe> ACTION: Janowicwz to sned us the info on HTTPS? in
SemWeb community [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Janowicwz'. You can review and
register nicknames at
<[22]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[22] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<scribe> ACTION: kryzstzof to sned us the info on HTTPS? in
SemWeb community [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Error finding 'kryzstzof'. You can review and
register nicknames at
<[24]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[24] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<scribe> ACTION: Janowicz to sned us the info on HTTPS? in
SemWeb community [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Sned us the info on https? in
semweb community [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2015-12-09].
jtandy: Works through more of the BPs
... Got as far as the BP on locally unique IDs. We want to
provide guidance on how they can mint their own URIs based on
those things.
... We want to talk about situations where there is no ID, just
the inference that something exists
... In schema.org you can talk about a hotel without actually
naming it. A bit like a blank node, but not, we need to give
guidance on minting URIs
... BP4 is to give advice on stable IDs for things that change
over time
... Things change over time and space. Need to give guidance so
we don't end up with a bunch of broken links.
... BP5 is on providing IDs for parts of larger datasets
... There will be a lot more notes going into this over the
coming week.
... Next on the list is expressing spatial data, section 7.2
... The big green section is based on action-101 from Bill,
Janowicz, Clemens etc.
... I don't think the list is going to appear directly in our
doc
... We're going to want to give people a methodology for
choosing the vocab that they want to use
eparsons: Would we say it's OK to publish data without an
explicit vocabulary
<KJanowicz> -1 I would not consider that good practice
eparsons: So you've provided stable URIs but there's no vocab
as such
jtandy: So there are either no semantics or it's a local vocab
only.
<eparsons> sck next
jtandy: A local vocab is OK as a last resort but it's better to
use an existing vocab.
KJanowicz: One of the things about RDF is that the data and
metadata come together. You always have some describing vocab
<ahaller2> +1 for always recommending a vocabulary, regardless
if your's or a commonly used one
ClemensPortele: I just want to point out that if we stick to
that (using existiung vocabs) then we'reruling out ShapeFiles,
GeoJSON etc.
<KJanowicz> but there are converters from shapefiles to RDF
ClemensPortele: I recognise the value in having a vocab but if
we stick with that then we're going down a very RDF-only route
<eparsons> +1 to ClemensPortele
jtandy: Some folks will have tool chains based around GML.
<KJanowicz> and in some cases just using a shapefile is fine
(not everything has to be Linked Data)
jtandy: One thing we've talked about is a grid that shows which
BPs are supported by each of the main formats
<KJanowicz> +1
jtandy: We can say it's a BP to say what your vocab is, but we
should recognise that some encoding or format choices won't
support it.
ClemensPortele: It's also the wording 'Best practice' - some
are 'Good practices'
... The format list I made for last week... you need to specify
some details
... sometimes it's easier just to create a bit of GeoJSON
... And sometimes its justified to make less effort
... I think there is case for a range of approaches
jtandy: I agree. One of the advantages of having such a big WG
is that we can be sensitive to those issues - please keep us on
track.
eparsons: I was just going to reaffirm what Clemens said. WE
should necessarily jump to 5 stars which would require an open
well recognised RDF vocab, but the pragmatic solutions include
just getting the unique IDs with data in whatever encoding it
is
... I think we have to recognise that there are graduations of
BP
jtandy: A request to Linda - can we put something like that in
the scope or the intro?
<KJanowicz> agreed, but a best practice document should explain
what to do in an ideal case. Of course, reaching these
solutions is not always possible for multiple reasons.
Linda: I'm sure that we can come up with something that links
the BPs in that way
<jtandy> phila: graduations of best practices are what lead to
DWBP benefits and sharePSI maturity model
<jtandy> ... some sort of clustering (e.g. DWBP benefits or
maturity model) will be useful
<jtandy> ... everyone does "this"
<jtandy> ... but to do "that" takes a bit more effort
AndreaPerego: Just a comment on the discussion about vocabs,
HTTP etc.
... I was thinking - sometimes we tahink about a stepwise
approach. First data on the Web, then more enhanced
... The first step is HTTP URIs, then those with conng
... We have different formats that can be used for some things
and not others. If you have a format you want to use, OK.
... There is a notion of profile
... Depending on what I want to do, if you think about CSWs,
you already can get the info in DC or ISO19115
jtandy: To play back the key point, there some things that
everyone should do, then you gradually get more sophisticated
... I'll rattle through exrfessing spatial data. Minimum
expressivity - you want to give people a type, a label,
multi-lingual content if your're in that kind of environment, a
ref point to put it on a map
... ANd then in the examples we'll show lots of ways of doing
it.
<KJanowicz> Agreed
phila: rambles about giving people too much choice and not
enough guidance
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Linda> +1 to phila
<KJanowicz> +1
jtandy: We can give guidance on giving a label, going on to
toponyms, and more, you might write that in a different way.
KJanowicz: I agree with what was said before - people turn to
BP documents because there's too much choice. If we make too
many things optional with different alternatives
... We need to make sure that the SSN can handle non-HTTP URIs
if we don't insist on that, for example - we shouoldn't make a
rod for our own backs (scribe paraphrase)
eparsons: What people are saying is right - this doc needs to
give advice - but we have to remember that this is a BP doc so
we need to be able to identify where BPs actyally exist and are
being followed.
... We need a real world example for all our BPs
<KJanowicz> Agreed
eparsons: I think it's going to be hard to publish even a draft
without at last some real world examples in there to show we
mean business.
jtandy: You know when you're climbing a hill and you get to a
false summit...
eparsons: We need to prove that it's not just us.
jtandy: BP7 - how to describe geometry.
... Lots of meat involved, hop to determine the geometry from
point to volume geometries
... How do you handle the case where geometries are 95% of your
data, might want to point to things
... Bounding boxes, CRSs etc.
... BP8 - Tried to resolve the long running conversation about
CRSs
... There's a BP that says if you're working on a
high-precision application then WGS84 probably won't be good
enough
... and you need to use something better
eparsons: I agree, but I'm concerned about the terminology.
It's not just about precision. WGS84 with enough decimal points
works, but some user communities have reqs that are not met by
the geoid that WGS84 uses
jtandy: Aus is moving 7 cm/year which doesn't help. Geographers
please help
eparsons: It's so unusual for anyone to pray to a geographer
I'm enjoying it...
jtandy: How to describe relative positions. It's not in the
reqs but we know people want to know it - it might fall off our
list.
... BP10 describes positional inaccuracies
... etc.
... ANd finally in that section, BP11 is about properties that
change over time which is hard, so BP is going to be helpful
... Over the next few days, Linda and I will be putting as much
unstructured text into the doc and then we'll try and structure
the text as we go.
... Hoping to have enough structure to vote next week.
eparsons: Thanks for all the work you've done in the f2f
meeting, much appreciated.
Linda: I was wondering in what state should the doc be for the
WG to accept it for publishing?
<jtandy> phila: FPWD? provide enough information to determine
whether the document will be useful
<jtandy> ... something that someone can look at to see where we
are going ...
<jtandy> ... regarding timelines; we like to have a week for
members to read before voting
<jtandy> ... give people time to consider
<jtandy> ... we need to be realistic on timescales
<jtandy> ... before xmas is good; but ...
Christmas is coming
eparsons: We have the potnetial for a call on 30 Dec
So we meet on 23 Dec but not 30
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<KJanowicz> will miss 23rd and 30st
<AndreaPerego> Me too, I'm afraid.
<ahaller2> will miss the 23rd
<jtandy> agree with KJanowicz
<LarsG> I'll miss the 23rd and the 30th as well
phila: I'd be inclined to stop on 16th
<KJanowicz> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
eparsons: OK, done deal. We stop after 16th
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx by
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye
<ClemensPortele> thanks!
<LarsG> cheers
eparsons: recommence on 6 Jan 2016
<ahaller2> bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: archer to propose some wording around HTTPS cf
HTTP [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: kryzstzof to sned us the info on HTTPS? in SemWeb
community [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
[26] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01
[27] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html#action05
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 21:11:31 UTC