- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:36:01 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The bright and colourful minutes of this week's meeting are at
http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes
With a text summary below.
Main resolutions:-
- Publish the next iteration of the UCR;
- delay publication of the BP doc to next month.
There will be a meeting as usual next week and then a 2 week break,
resuming Wednesday 6th Jan at 20:00 GMT.
Meanwhile, if you haven't already done so, please mark your diaries for
the next f2f which will take place in Amersfoort 8 - 10 February.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
09 Dec 2015
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151209
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
ClemensPortele, Payam, phila, kerry, Phila, frans, bart,
BartvanLeeuwen, jtandy, MattPerry, Linda, LarsG,
AndreaPerego, ahaller2
Regrets
Bill, Ed, Rachel, Andreas, Alejandro, Jon Blower
Chair
kerry
Scribe
LarsG
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]approve last week's minutes
2. [6]patent call
3. [7]Use Cases and Requirements Note: resolve to publish
2nd public working draft
4. [8]2. Best Practice: Revised timescales
5. [9]Best Practice: ACTION-98 list/matrix of the common
formats
6. [10]Best Practice: update on progress, any other
issues
7. [11]Reminder: Christmas Break (no meeting 23 & 30
December
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kerry> chair: kerry
<BartvanLeeuwen> -1
<phila> scribe: LarsG
<phila> scribeNick: LarsG
<kerry> [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes
[14] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes
<jtandy> +1
<kerry> +1
<Linda> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
approve last week's minutes
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
<Payam> +1
<frans> +0 (was not present)
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<MattPerry> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
patent call
<kerry> [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Use Cases and Requirements Note: resolve to publish 2nd public
working draft
Bart: is the Swiss topographical survey in our WG?
phila: not to my knowledge
<jtandy> I don't know anyone from swisstopo participating
either
BartvanLeeuwen: They have much content and should be aware of
what we do
... just want to make sure they aren't already
phila: don't know if they are OGC members, I know they're not
W3C members
kerry: we want to publish 2 PWD of UCR
<phila> [16]UCR Snapshot
[16]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/
frans: the document is ready, phila did some cleanup of broken
links
... but it's ready for publication
kerry: we can vote on that
frans: still some loose ends, document is not finished
... unresolved issues around, there might be new requirements
... all loose ends in the tracker
... assigns actions to other document editors
... the editors can then pass the actions on to others
kerry: well done
frans: using the tracker is a great help
Linda: What is the difference to the current WD?
frans: minor details, some issues were resolved. FPWD published
in summer
<phila> And 2 new UCs
frans: did some rephrasing, fixing errors etc.
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if we can put a diff section
in
jtandy: in previous work I was involved in there was a diff
section in the documents. Don't see this in the UCR document.
Is that needed?
phila: no, it's not necessary
jtandy: but it's easy with a good diff tool
... does respec do that?
phila: don't know
frans: if we list all changes it will be a large boring
document. It could be assigned as an action so someone
<phila> [17]The diff between the two
[17]
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2015%2FNOTE-sdw-ucr-20150723%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fpublishing-snapshots%2F2015-12-17-UseCases%2F
jtandy: previously we have done an external diff document with
all changes
phila: there is a diff available (through the diff tool). Is
that enough?
<Linda> Looks good to me
<jtandy> yes- I think that's sufficient for a diff
phila: Talked to OGC about their publication process. Minimum
period is eight days, so we must get the OGC process going
today.
<kerry> +1 to diff as Phil linked
phila: OGC can vote before we do. Has sent a snapshot of the
document to them so that they can kick off their process
... there is no need to hold up their process
joshlieberman: has posted the PDF on the OGC portal and
initiated a poll
<jtandy> [aside: generating diffs automatically ... see
[18]https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/publishing_proces
s.md for what we did on CSVW ... steps 6 & 7 are relevant]
[18] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/publishing_process.md
<frans> About the diff tool: do we want to have a link to the
document marked with changes in the documents that we will
publish next?
joshlieberman: saying that we need to start the vote this
evening. Passes it on to Scott
kerry: so if we vote tonight we can have it formally published
before Christmas
... Do we need to update the snapshot to include the diff?
joshlieberman: we should mention that there are two more UCs
and a new requirement. Don't know if we need more details
<frans> Could we decide to add the diff info in next
publications?
phila: we can say that we accept it for publication iff the
diff is added
joshlieberman: there is an automated process in the OGC
... so the new version is OGC r1
<jtandy> [see CSVW PR
([19]http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata
/Overview.html) that shows "Diff to previous version"
(automatically generated) and the editorial list of notable
changes at Appendix E Changes from previous drafts
[20]http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/
Overview.html#changes]
[19]
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html)
[20]
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html#changes]
joshlieberman: but that is not a substantive change
jtandy: CSVW have a diff-to-previous-versoin section created by
the diff tool, probably using respec
<jtandy>
[21]http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/
diff.html
[21]
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/diff.html
<jtandy>
[22]http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/
Overview.html#changes
[22]
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html#changes
<jtandy> [23]https://github.com/w3c/csvw/commits/gh-pages
[23] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/commits/gh-pages
jtandy: the document also has an editorial section listing
major changes. We can also link to the commit history
... on github. so it shouldn't be difficult to add that
<joshlieberman> Summary: 2 new use cases (Provenance of climate
data, representing geospatial data in RDF), 1 new requirement
(update datatypes in OWL Time), Accepted requirements by
deliverable, Deferred requirements.
frans: if W3C and OGC don't mind an additional change it's OK.
Can see the usefulness of the diff.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make an offer
joshlieberman: some requirements shifted their numbers but that
should be OK
<jtandy> [ jtandy noticed the change in REQ numbering too ]
phila: changing numbers shouldn't be a problem since we use
textual links anyway
... adding the diff should be fine
<frans> the id tags are fixed, the numbers are flexible. To
refer to use cases or requirements please use the iss (fragment
identifiers)
phila: asks frans to write a brief summary and phila can add it
to the document
<phila> ACTION: frans to write short textual summary of changes
since FPWD of the UCR doc [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Write short textual summary of
changes since fpwd of the ucr doc [on Frans Knibbe - due
2015-12-16].
<phila> ACTION: phila to add links to Diff and Commit history
to UCR doc [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
joshlieberman: OGC is fine with that
<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Add links to diff and commit
history to ucr doc [on Phil Archer - due 2015-12-16].
frans: is it possible to have a universal URI that points to
the most recent version?
<phila> That's what [26]http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/ is, frans
[26] http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
<joshlieberman> [27]http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
[27] http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
phila: there is a process to create those short URIs. They
point to the most recent published version.
... and there is a link to the editors' draft
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask @phila if he will update
[28]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
[28] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
<phila> ACTION: phila to update GH pages index etc [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Update gh pages index etc [on
Phil Archer - due 2015-12-16].
Linda: there is no link to the draft from our wiki
<kerry> ACTION: kerry to ensure wiki has link to
[30]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
[30] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
[31] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Ensure wiki has link to
[32]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ [on Kerry Taylor - due
2015-12-16].
[32] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
frans: if we change the link on the wiki to the short URI we
have links to both the published and the current version
Linda: misses link to the current WD
kerry: will take care of that
<phila> PROPOSED: That the version of the UCR at
[33]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-Us
eCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being
complted by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last
version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated
diff and GH commit history
[33]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/
<jtandy> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<phila> PROPOSED: That the version of the UCR at
[34]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-Us
eCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being
completed by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last
version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated
diff and GH commit history. And that the OGC process is also
concluded satisfactorily.
[34]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/
<jtandy> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
<frans> +1
<joshlieberman> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<kerry> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
<Payam> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<KJanowicz> +1
RESOLUTION: That the version of the UCR at
[35]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-Us
eCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being
completed by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last
version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated
diff and GH commit history. And that the OGC process is also
concluded satisfactorily.
[35]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/
<phila> Vote of thanks to the editors
<kerry> +1
<frans> thank you, could not have done it without all of you
<frans> bye Phil!
2. Best Practice: Revised timescales
jtandy: BP editors see that there is more work to do in order
to have it review ready
... if editing is delayed to the end of next week (+10 days)
editing could be finished
... then WG members can review until January 6
... and we can vote. This assumes that OGC vote is eight
working days,
... then we can publish on January 19 or 20
Linda: wants to vote one week later
<AndreaPerego> +1 to vote on Jan, 13th.
kerry: it's fine to vote on Jan 13
... holiday time everywhere
<ahaller2> +1 for 13 Jan
<jtandy> PROPOSED: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13
2016 ... we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016
<joshlieberman> +1
<jtandy> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
+1
<Linda> +1
<KJanowicz> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<frans> +1
<Payam> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
RESOLUTION: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ...
we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016
RESOLUTION: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ...
we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016
Best Practice: ACTION-98 list/matrix of the common formats
<Linda> [36]http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
[36] http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
<Linda> [37]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/98
[37] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/98
<jtandy> [ Ed's table is here:
[38]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp ]
[38] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp
Linda: action is about common spatial formats and what you can
do with them
<Linda>
[39]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_SpatialDataFormats
[39] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_SpatialDataFormats
Linda: Ed has done one table and Clemens another one
... would like to merge those tables
... both have useful information
<jtandy> Column headers: Format Openness Binary/text Usage
Discoverability Granular links CRS Support Verbosity Semantics
vocbab? Streamable 3D Support
<jtandy> (in Ed's table)
Linda: Clemens's table is more detailed
... is worried about including both general and specific
properties when merging
frans: depends on the purpose of the table
... do editors have a clear vision of that?
... e. g. webiness of formats or also stand-alone GIS software
formats
... what is the purpose?
Linda: Purpose is to help people to choose a format for
publishing on the web, so webiness is a criterion
ClemensPortele: agrees that webiness is a factor but shouldn't
be the only one
<joshlieberman> Second purpose could be to help people to
transform existing data to a webbier format...then we need to
reference existing data formats.
ClemensPortele: it's better to have the data out as a shape
file if the alternative is to have no data at all
... how much guidance do we want to give?
... multiple geometries etc.
... tries to stick to objective measures
... looking at link support, semantic requirements
... knows that the list is long and might be hard to understand
for non-geoexperts
... Ed's classification is a bit subjective (verbosity)
<jtandy> [ agree that Ed's classifications are subjective ]
ClemensPortele: to we want to include soft critera, too?
kerry: likes Ed's table, key best practices
... otoh there are people who recognise the value of the number
of attributes listed
... both tables have a purpose, do we have room to do both?
<jtandy> [ thinks that the multiple user aspect might work ...
]
kerry: one table with the most common ones (casual) and one as
a deeper reference
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask the WG what they would look
for regarding guidance of format choice
kerry: has a preference for that
jtandy: ... asking the WG to help the editors by saying what
kind of table they would prefer (what would be helpful to pick
a format)
<joshlieberman> Ed's criteria are good, just have to formalize
them a bit.
<joshlieberman> e.g. what is "discoverable"?
<frans> I would like to see only one recommended format, not
twenty formats for different purposes
<kerry> ACTION: andrea to comment on table content and format
around ACTION-98 [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Comment on table content and
format around action-98 [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-12-16].
<kerry> ACTION: josh to Comment on table content and format
around action-98 [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Error finding 'josh'. You can review and register
nicknames at <[42]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[42] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<joshlieberman> joshlieberman
<kerry> ACTION: joshlieberman to Comment on table content and
format around action-98 [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action07]
[43] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - to comment on table content and
format around action-98 [on Joshua Lieberman - due 2015-12-16].
frans: we need a good definition of format
... some in the table are classic GIS formats, others are in
the RDF/Web sphere (e. g. GeoJSON)
<KJanowicz> I would not consider neogeo a format
jtandy: we collate that information. There is an action for
that
<KJanowicz> it is more like a vocabulary and this is action 101
and 103
jtandy: vocabularies are not formats
<joshlieberman> There are combinations of model, schema, and
encoding...not just format.
jtandy: so there are two collections
<jtandy> that we've done some more updates to the BP doc too
... particularly note that Linda has finished BP 1 ...
[44]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids
[44] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids
Best Practice: update on progress, any other issues
jtandy: work is underway
Reminder: Christmas Break (no meeting 23 & 30 December
kerry: last meeting 2015 is next week December 16
<KJanowicz> bye bye
<joshlieberman> Ta ta
kerry: then Christmas break until January 6
<frans> thank you. good day!
<ClemensPortele> bye
<MattPerry> \quit
Cheers
<joshlieberman> \quit
<kerry> ta ta from me!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: andrea to comment on table content and format
around ACTION-98 [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: frans to write short textual summary of changes
since FPWD of the UCR doc [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: josh to Comment on table content and format
around action-98 [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: joshlieberman to Comment on table content and
format around action-98 [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: kerry to ensure wiki has link to
[49]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: phila to add links to Diff and Commit history to
UCR doc [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: phila to update GH pages index etc [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
[45] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05
[46] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01
[47] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06
[48] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action07
[49] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/
[50] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04
[51] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02
[52] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03
Summary of Resolutions
1. [53]Accept last week's minutes
2. [54]That the version of the UCR at
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-Us
eCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions
being completed by Frans (editorial notes of changes since
the last version) and Phil adding links to the
mechanically-generated diff and GH commit history. And that
the OGC process is also concluded satisfactorily.
3. [55]delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ... we
will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016
4. [56]delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ... we
will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 09:36:04 UTC