W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > December 2015

[Minutes] 2015-12-19

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>
Message-ID: <56694781.7030603@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:10 UTC