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

[Minutes] 2015-12-16

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:10:08 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5671D330.4010904@w3.org>
As ever, this week's minutes are in colour at 
http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Thanks for a very productive first year everyone - enjoy the break, see 
you on Wednesday 6th Jan 2016 at 20:00 GMT (Thursday 7th for Australia 
of course)

The UCR doc is all set to be published by both SDOs tomorrow, the BP doc 
is only a couple of working weeks behind it.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year

Phil.


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2015

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151216

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ClausStadler, DanhLePhuoc, Linda, eparsons, jtandy,
           phila, LarsG, BartvanLeeuwen, MattPerry, billroberts,
           MrJohnSCirincione, ScottSimmons

    Regrets
           clemens, Frans, Payam, Andreas, Rachel, Josh, Simon,
           Andrea, Krzysztof, Jon

    Chair
           Ed

    Scribe
           Kerry, Jeremy Tandy

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]SSN and the definition of tasks
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
    Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 16 December 2015

    <Kerry> scribe:Kerry

    <scribe> scribenick: Kerry

    <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes

    <eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

    <Linda> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <phila> +1

    RESOLUTION: approve last weeks minutes

    <LarsG> 0 (missed most of the call)

    +1

    <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

    <eparsons> [9]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    <eparsons> Topic : Best Practice - Progress to date

    <phila> C Nortgate Parkinson's law I believe

    jtandy: BP pub delayed last week
    ... still developing -- linda and payam have been busy last
    week
    ... up to bp 18 is looking good
    ... more for jtandy to do after that
    ... some respec errors

    <phila> [10]Editors' Draft of the BP doc

      [10] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

    jtandy: on 6th jan will be spiffing [sic]

    Linda: Payam and I have covered first half, looking pretty good
    to there, some styling to go

    jtandy: some outstanding points
    ... BP 9

    <jtandy> [11]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#relative-position

      [11] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#relative-position

    jtandy: relative positioning/ linear referencing we picked this
    up along the way
    ... refers to topo network eg directions along a street from a
    reference point like a junction
    ... can be done in GML, is an edge case, not really common
    practice

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say we need to talk to AR people
    about this

    jtandy: want to know how important this BP is ---- or is it
    geofluff [sic]

    <jtandy> "geo-fluff"

    phila: AR people need this, eg Christine Perey, we should check
    with her

    <jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to talk to Christine Perey about the
    need for relative positioning [recorded in
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Talk to christine perey about
    the need for relative positioning [on Jeremy Tandy - due
    2015-12-23].

    ed: is this broader than just linear referencing -- common in
    engineering, but is it also a case of these other spatail
    relationships?

    s.spatial/spatial/

    <billroberts> sorry I'm late!

    jtandy: yes, but looking for advice on this, e.g. ed's upstairs
    under the bed use case

    <eparsons> ACTION: Ed to add more spatial relationship things
    [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Add more spatial relationship
    things [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-12-23].

    jtandy: ed can you write some paragraphs for the proforma that
    would motivate this?

    Ed: yes. might get a bit fuzzy but is important

    jtandy: rachel also talked about chainage [sic] along a
    geospatial survey... relative positioning between the points
    ... Linda awaiting actions from andrea and Josh ACTION-126 and
    ACTION-127 re merging data formats
    ... but not present at meeting

    Ed: missed last call -- one table or 2?

    jtandy.... We liked the subjective stuff in Ed's table but also
    Clemens formal/factual style and we want that.

    scribe: not yet pinned down how to fit this in, but we want to
    capture both in one place to start with... will come back later

    ed: if you are really rushed you should skim through that for a
    lot of information

    jtandy: still a bit ambiguouls how this will be presented
    ... BP 3 and BP5 are flagged as requiring extra content

    <jtandy> BP-3 [14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#lacking-ids

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#lacking-ids

    <phila> [15]What DWBP says on that topic

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#identifiersWithinDatasets

    <jtandy> BP-5 [16]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#ids-for-chuncks

      [16] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#ids-for-chuncks

    jtandy: loads of identifiers in a CSV table... where is good
    practice for converting local identifiers to http uris? we need
    to find this.
    ... also BP 5 fragment identifiers
    ... (problem with typo in chunks discussed with jtandy, linda,
    phila)

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about possible navigation

    <scribe> ACTION: Linda to change fragment identifier for chunks
    in BP doc [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Change fragment identifier for
    chunks in bp doc [on Linda van den Brink - due 2015-12-23].

    jtandy: we don't know what to add in here -- we need more

    phila: you are missing extra navigation on top of the list
    (DWBP maybe has too much)

    <phila>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#challenges

      [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#challenges

    <phila>
    [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#bp-benefits

      [19] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#bp-benefits

    phila: DWBP uses SVG diagram to group them, also grouped by
    benefits (also generated), but respec duplicated the lists
    ... which or both of these is useful for SDW bp?

    jtandy: agreed, but is is mandatory for fpwd?

    phila: no

    ed: agrees useful but ths should come later -- too hard now

    jtandy: lets try -- phila agrees to do the scripting

    ed: how many BPs do we have real BP examples to point to?

    jtandy: http identifiers: nanaimo
    ... reuse -- anything that uses geonames
    ... identifiers -- from sdi used in a web environemnt -- this
    must exist

    ed: before FPWD we need at least some of these filled in
    ... need to show that we stand behind waht we say
    ... want to give people homewoerk to find these things

    jtandy: we had planned to wait for after FPWD

    ed: how about doc actually stating this intention then -- if
    not actually doing it?

    linda: in intor or scope there is a statement like this -- all
    being founded on real live practice -- could add intent to put
    examples in but every bp has an example section to show it is
    expected

    ed: ok that sounds ok

    jtandy: questions?

    ed: hope the BP editors still get a holiday!

    <jtandy> scribe: Jeremy Tandy

    <jtandy> scribenick: jtandy

    <eparsons> Topic : SSN - Tasks definition SSN Tasks

SSN and the definition of tasks

    Kerry: we have 3 SSN editors on the call

    <Kerry> [20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks

    Kerry: list of tasks is not necessarily final
    ... first on the list
    ... BTW: this is early warning of where we want people to help
    ... so first - modularisation of the SSN ontology
    ... Krystof (spelling?) is taking this forward; using a pattern
    based approach
    ... [missed no. 2]
    ... [other topics] need to determine the scope of SSN - base on
    requirements
    ... align SSN with PROV-O
    ... align with RDF Data Cube
    ... need to work out how SSN can work with satellite data
    ... will revisit the multilingual annotation
    ... look at the 'actuation' concerns - although handed off to
    WoT folks
    ... shall we develop targeted 'profiles' of SSN for different
    purposes
    ... not quite sure how to document that

    phila: we don't have a standard that enables us to define
    profiles - but w3 does have a WG to define that
    ... there are things like SPIN and shape expression -
    ... the way we define a profile at the moment is to publish a
    PDF
    ... it's that there are several ways to publish the profile
    ... does anyone have any thoughts

    Kerry: good point - slightly off scope, but maybe we could set
    the best practice for defining profiles in this group

    <billroberts> is this what you mean by 'shape expression'
    phila? [21]https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

      [21] https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

    Kerry: PROV-O is a good example of documentation of an ontology
    - but this is a tremendous amount of work
    ... adding deeper 'OWL axiomisation' ... but not sure what that
    means
    ... could mean the removal of reliance on DULCE?
    ... more stuff that relates to modularisation
    ... this is a big list
    ... is there anything we've forgotten?

    eparsons: big list - is this realistic?

    Kerry: you could be right - we must do the documentation, but
    we're not starting from scratch
    ... the redesign [modularisation] is needed
    ... profiles are prob optional
    ... we might be able to miss out the tutorial
    ... aligning with PROV-O is harder - because we're not quite
    sure how to do this
    ... yes, there's a lot of stuff, but much of this has been done
    before and we can reuse

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about SSN as a FPWD

    Kerry: obviously it depends on how much work people put in :-)

    phila: so you also have SSN ... I'm thinking about my next WG
    that I can't call 'licensing'
    ... there the FPWD will be ODRL, this is similar to SSN
    ... would a lot of cutting & pasting from the earlier work be
    sufficient?

    Kerry: modularisation needs to be done
    ... that's numbers 1, 2 and 12 from the list that Kerry was
    referring to [ref?]

    <eparsons> jtandy relationstionship between OGC activities and
    this - how is this manifested at the ontology level

    jtandy: talking about the O&M ontology work from Simon Cox

    <MrJohnSCirincione> Present John Cirincione Collateral
    Analytics

    Kerry: this might be done in the modularisation / refactoring
    ... treat O&M as an upper ontology ... making the mapping
    explicit

    DanhLePhuoc: several tasks on the list can be merged; e.g.
    numbers 1 & 2

    <eparsons> hello john will give you introduction in moment..

    DanhLePhuoc: also specifying best practices and the tutorial
    action

    Kerry: agrees

    eparsons: notes that MrJohnSCirincione has joined us

    MrJohnSCirincione: introduces himself

    eparsons: please talk to myself or kerry offline to get some
    more context - at the moment we're in the weeds of a topic [not
    too accessible for a new starter]

    Kerry: there's also ClausStadler_

    ClausStadler_: introduces himself and notes some technical
    difficulties in joining
    ... am from Leipzig University

    eparsons: happy to brief you offline too

    Kerry: right now we're focused on SSN, would welcome assistance
    on that

    <MrJohnSCirincione> Ed and All, many thanks for the warm
    welcome, Sincerely John C.

    Kerry: so - I'm looking for feedback on what the SSN
    deliverable looks like
    ... can you point to things that we should copy (e.g. other
    ontologies)
    ... what about user documentation
    ... are we talking about a family of documents
    ... I like PROV-O - but that's a lot of work.

    <Kerry> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/

      [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/

    eparsons: does anyone have any views?

    jtandy: suggests a primer

    <phila> Primer++

    Kerry: so this is like a tutorial ... a bit like it

    jtandy: primer is for bootstrapping people

    Kerry: so we're talking about many things .., tutorial, primer,
    howto

    phila: surely the primer is a howto?

    eparsons: primer is not so much of a beginner - but someone who
    has more that a passing (academic) interest in the topic

    BartvanLeeuwen: it's difficult to see how this fits with this
    group ...
    ... I'm interested in this because I'm creating a linked data
    fire engine which is covered in sensors
    ... but how does this fit with spatial data

    eparsons: I see that ... sensors fit in 'space' so there's a
    spatial element

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to raise a point I remember Ralph
    making in DWBP

    eparsons: but you're right that we need to make things coherent
    in [regards to the work of the _spatial_ data on the web group]

    <Kerry> +q

    phila: agrees - notes that in his other WG, it was odd that
    there was no cross referencing between the documents published
    within that group

    jtandy: there will be cross referencing ... there are sections
    for dealing with sensor and observation data

    Kerry: in our planning we put the BP stuff first ...
    ... [missing]
    ... we will need to pin down [the relationship between the
    deliverables] at some point in the future

    eparsons: so in a future call we need to talk about the scope
    of the SSN work; the over arching scope
    ... the BP doc will touch on sensor data, but the SSN
    deliverable will be much more detailed
    ... we need an overarching scope to bind all the deliverables
    together [in terms of spatial data]

    Kerry: agreed - sensor data _is_ spatial data

    eparsons: BartvanLeeuwen can be our barometer of whether we've
    done this

    BartvanLeeuwen: I can see this - but it still feels different

    <Zakim> Linda, you wanted to ask people to record their
    attendance of the next f2f

    <Linda> [23]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F3

      [23] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F3

    jtandy: refers to the Linking Geospatial Data conference in
    London, 2013 ... this is where the scope of the WG was defined

    <phila> I hear Ed getting his light sabre ready

    Linda: please can you all record if you're going to attend the
    next f2f near Amsterdam

    eparsons: thanks for your efforts, goodnight & merry christmas

    <LarsG> happy christmas all

    <billroberts> thanks all - bye

    Kerry: see you next year!

    <eparsons> May the force me with you !!!

    <eparsons> thanks scribes

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ed to add more spatial relationship things
    [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: jtandy to talk to Christine Perey about the need
    for relative positioning [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Linda to change fragment identifier for chunks in
    BP doc [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action02
      [25] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action01
      [26] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action03

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [27]approve last weeks minutes

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 21:09:58 UTC

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