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

[Minutes] 2015-07-08

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 19:52:59 +0100
Message-ID: <559D718B.2050003@w3.org>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at 
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes. Sorry I wasn't able to be 
there. Glad to see an issue resolved!

As usual, a text snapshot of the minutes is provided below for your 

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

08 Jul 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-irc


           kerry, LarsG, Alejandro_Llaves, Frans, Bart, van,
           Leeuwen, ClemensPortele, MattPerry, AndreaPerego, cory,

           Jeremy, Linda, Ed, Phil, Andreas, Simon, Stefan_Lemme,
           Josh, Stefan, Lemme




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]requirements issue-12
          2. [5]best practice designissues
          3. [6]approve the minutes
          4. [7]W3C and OGC patent calls
          5. [8]Sapporo
          6. [9]AOB?
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

requirements issue-12

    <ChrisLittle> * Clemens, could you mute while typing please

    <Frans> Lots of background noise!


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/12

    <BartvanLeeuwen> kerry, could you mute yourself ?

    <ClemensPortele> Chris, I am muted locally

    <ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: issue 12 from Barcelona

    <ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: for now excluded as
    considered out-of-scope, but we have the issue still open

    <ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: for discussion at f2f
    meeting, but does not seem important for use cases

    <ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: comments anyone?

    <ChrisLittle> * clemens apologies

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: maybe not covered by a use case, but
    seems to be a requirement from IoT community

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: suggestion to close the issue for now,
    but add an action to discuss this with them later

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <kerry> ACTION: kerry to keep in contact with WoT re actuation
    [recorded in

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Keep in contact with wot re
    actuation [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-07-15].

    <ClemensPortele> ACTION: Alejandro_Llaves to close issue-12
    [recorded in

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'Alejandro_Llaves'. You can review and
    register nicknames at

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users

    <Alejandro_Llaves> close issue 12

best practice designissues

    <Alejandro_Llaves> close: issue-12

    <Alejandro_Llaves> :(

    <Payam> A good sample for best practice:

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html


      [16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150708

    <kerry> Are we focussing on "linked data" -- can we use JSON-LD
    as out primary encoding for each BP, then supplement where

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: Jeremy was keen on using JSON-LD in BPs

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors want to avoid the "usual"
    basics (have metadata, etc); just reference this as a basis

    <kerry> +1

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors do not want a tutorial

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: But be clear about things to avoid

    <LarsG> +1 to technology independence

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Idea is to use JSON-LD (and other
    formats) in examples, but be clear that this is just an example

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to technology independence

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to things to avoid as well as BP

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Approach will be to go requirements and
    try to group them

    <AndreaPerego> I think that what we mean with "technology
    independence" needs to be clarified.

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors will work on a proposal and
    present it to the group

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: Plan is to have a draft available for
    f2f meeting

    <billroberts> I think using JSON-LD for examples is a good
    idea. Reasonably readable and the JSON bit will be familiar to
    many non-lD people

    <ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: regarding referencing vs
    repeating - we need to be careful; is referencing general (we
    inherit all of Data on the Web BP) or are we specific with

    <ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: "technology independence" - what
    do we mean by this? the web is a platform that has its own

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: agrees, document should also be
    self-sufficient, but should not go into detail with content
    included in Data on the Web BP

    <ClemensPortele> +1 on make references specific (to be clear
    which requirements or BPs are meant)

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: agrees on being technical, but no
    making the BP a tutorial

    <Frans> The scope of the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group,
    SDWWG, is Web technologies as they may be applied to location.
    Where relevant, it will promote Linked Data using the 5 Stars
    of Linked Data paradigm, but this will not be to the exclusion
    of other technologies.

    <ClemensPortele> Frans: points out the statement in the
    charter; does everyone agree with this or is a change necessary

    <AndreaPerego> No change needed, IMO.

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: sees the approach discussed consistent
    with the charter

    <ClemensPortele> +1 for no change needed

    <kerry> +1 I think we "assume" as frans suggested

    <ClemensPortele> Frans: do we assume linked data to be the best
    practice or are we looking at each UC/Req?

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: In many cases linked data is one
    approach, but others are (equally) valid as well

    <ClemensPortele> ... discussion about "best practice"
    (singular) vs "best practices" (plural)

    <ClemensPortele> BartvanLeeuwen: Data on the Web had a similar

    <ClemensPortele> BartvanLeeuwen: Approach there is linked data
    is included in the scope, but not the exclusive approach

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: suggests to discuss this when we have a
    concrete BP example

    <billroberts> (sorry forgot before)

    <billroberts> +1 agree easier to comment and refine when we can
    discuss a concrete first draft

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: idea was to not assume a certain
    technology to be the best practice for all use cases

    <AndreaPerego> I would say a certain "Web" technology

    <billroberts> I liked Jeremy's explanation of the publishers
    and consumers relationship

    <ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: the web should be the basis (not
    linked data as such), this is the minimal requirement

    <kerry> agree we must use uris and also we must link!

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: agrees with Andrea

    <Payam> [17]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

      [17] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: agrees with Jeremy's proposal to use
    the DWBP as a template, but extend to cover both
    publisher/consumer perspectives

    <ClemensPortele> Frans: publishers may also have their own
    requirements beyond the consumer requirements

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: should we ask editors to use the
    "template" and create an example?

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <ClemensPortele> Frans: a good idea; maybe from the metadata

    <AndreaPerego> +1 to metadata

    <billroberts> I hear a bit of background noise from somewhere
    but no speaking (except for Kerry)

    <Frans> Good idea to make suggestions on the list

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: please make suggestions on the list
    where to start

    <ClemensPortele> Payam: editors will work on the grouping

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: maybe do both (grouping, example) in

    <Frans> I like the idea of picking one BP requirement as an

approve the minutes

    <Payam> +1

    <billroberts> (missed last week's call so can't vote)

    <AndreaPerego> [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes

    <Frans> Kerry, you also did not do the patent call

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1 minutes

    <MattPerry> +1

    <kerry> [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html

    <AndreaPerego> I was not there

    <cory> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

W3C and OGC patent calls

    <Frans> I have not read the minutes entirely yet


    <ClemensPortele> kerry: reminder to register for TPAC

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: idea is to finalise 1st working draft

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: start work on ontologies

    <ClemensPortele> kerry: status at OGC?

    <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele: email vote started (low
    turnout in OGC DWG telecon)


    <ChrisLittle> Bye and Thank you

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye!

    <billroberts> ok, thanks very much, bye!

    <ClemensPortele> bye

    <MattPerry> bye

    <Payam> bye

    <Frans> have a good week

    <AndreaPerego> rsagent, draft minutes

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Alejandro_Llaves to close issue-12 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: kerry to keep in contact with WoT re actuation
    [recorded in

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 18:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC