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

Re: [Minutes] 2017-07-15

From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:05:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHrFjcm0JLpZ0OpTndvB+SAPdNZi-RULTVvqowxTLc9yyh0fTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Sorry Chris.. Zakim was playing up !! I had to plead to get him on the call
and he must have missed you !

Ed


On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 at 18:03 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
wrote:

>  Ed,
>
>
>
> What happened to me? I even typed “zakim present+” or whatever.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:06 PM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* [Minutes] 2017-07-15
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your contributions..
>
>
>
> The minutes of today's meeting are at
> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html
>
>
>
> Text Snapshot below..
>
>
>
> Attendees
>
>
>
> Present
>
> eparsons, Alejandro_Llaves, aharth, MattPerry, ahaller2, jtandy, LarsG,
> AndreaPerego
>
> Regrets
>
> phil, kerry, Rachel, Josh, Bill, Philippe, Stefan_Lemme, Bart
>
> Chair
>
> eparsons
>
> Scribe
>
> simoncox
>
> Contents
>
>
>
> Topics
>
> Approve Minutes
>
> Patent Call
>
> Use Cases and Requirements: ISSUE 13
>
> ANOB
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> Is IRC functioning?
>
>
>
> <eparsons> YY
>
> Its prob ably my turn
>
>
>
> <eparsons> scribe: simoncox
>
> Approve Minutes
>
>
>
> <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html
>
> <Payam> +1
>
> <jtandy> +1 (approved)
>
> <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
>
> <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
>
> <ahaller2> wasn't present
>
> Patent Call
>
>
>
> <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
>
> No objections - 2015-07-08 minutes approved
>
>
>
> Use Cases and Requirements: ISSUE 13
>
>
>
> <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/13
>
> eparsons: Issue013
>
>
>
> Alejandro: ISSUE 13 Profiling
>
> ... Profiles of SSN 1. constrained model 2. compliance - unclear which?
>
> ... understands need to check data is compliant with SSN model - no clear
> way to do this - W3C RDF Data Shapes probably relevant but incomplete
>
>
>
> <Payam> forgot how to add myself to the qeue
>
> <eparsons> "q+"
>
> Alejandro: e.g. geology wants to define version of SSN with specific
> constraints on values - probably not possible in SDW - must be delegated to
> application community?
>
>
>
> Payam, Chris Little, Armin on Q
>
>
>
> <Payam> http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/SSNValidation/
>
> Payam: validation is needed in Requirements
>
>
>
> Chris is a chipmunk
>
>
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> helium?
>
> Come down Chris - all forgiven
>
>
>
> General hilarity
>
>
>
> Armin: 1. RDF Shapes not viable solution 2. different modules of SSNO
> makes it difficult to define generic validation service
>
>
>
> Chris: if SSNO is complex, profiles are essential; if SSNO is simple,
> profiles implies SSNO is inadequate - which?
>
>
>
> Jeremy: SSNO is complex; typically necessary to add domain specific
> aspects in a profile
>
>
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
>
> Jeremy: RDF Data Shapes is unlikely to be finished in time
>
>
>
> <ChrisLittle> +1 jeremy
>
> Jeremy: Is simplifying a complex model for a domain application a 'best
> practice' in its own right?
>
>
>
> Alejandro: do we agree SSNO validator required?
>
>
>
> <ahaller2> +1 profile
>
> <ahaller2> -1 validator
>
> Alejandro: do we need SSNO profiles?
>
>
>
> Jeremy: is the validator/profile requirement specific to SSNO? Or is this
> a generic requirement - to be able to profile/validate against data models?
>
>
>
> Alejandro: focussing on what goes in document
>
> ... set 'solutions' aside at this time?
>
>
>
> Armin: what does validator actually validate?
>
>
>
> <Payam> +q
>
> Payam: validation allows combination of more than one ontology
>
>
>
> Jeremy: 1. validation = verify that data is complete, to support
> application
>
> ... 2. validation = verify that profile is conformant to general case
>
>
>
> Andreas: OWL models/ontologies are concerned with logical consistency, not
> integrity
>
> ... RDF data shapes - add integrity checks; QB includes SPARQL ASK queries
> to check integrity
>
>
>
> Ed: not convinced there is big validation requirement
>
>
>
> <ahaller2> don't care
>
> Alejandro: Barcelona discussion focussed on validation; requirements on
> list/document appears to focus more on application-specific profiles
>
>
>
> <aharth> link to qb well-formed section:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf
>
> <ahaller2> it is the web, everyone can extend ontologies how they like
>
> Ed: requirement does not call out validation - can we close issue?
>
>
>
> Jeremy: ask validation question in UCR next draft?
>
>
>
> <Payam> I'm sorry, I have to leave early today
>
> <eparsons> PROPOSED: Close issue - case for validation not made yet.. will
> revisit
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <ChrisLittle> +1 revisit
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
>
> <Payam> +1 revisit
>
> Ed: close ISSUE 13 - no case for validation yet (can be reopened later)
>
>
>
> <MattPerry> +1
>
> <eparsons> RESOLVED: Close issue - case for validation not made yet.. will
> revisit
>
> Jeremy: call out 'candidate' and 'deferred' requirements - validation =
> candidate requirement, not addressed now
>
>
>
> <jtandy> Candidate ... Accepted ... Deferred requirements ...
>
> <jtandy> (see
> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/index.html for
> example)
>
> Jeremy: use precedent from CSV on web
>
>
>
> <eparsons> Topic : Best Practice Consolidation Progress
>
> Ed: next - BP til now
>
>
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> I did not
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation
>
> Jeremy: has membership reviewed
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation ?
>
> ... propose working through UCs to pull out common themes to use in
> narrative?
>
>
>
> <eparsons> +1
>
> Jeremy: focus is on Spatial Best Practices in general, Time/coverages/SSN
> only incidentally
>
>
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
>
> <LarsG> +1
>
> Jeremy: publisher vs consumer view - typically publisher wears cost to
> make consumer's life easier.
>
> ... see summary
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation#Analysis_pointers
>
> ... e.g. looking for wildfires using satellite imagery - UC is mostly
> about classifying pixels; BP can't address details of processing
> algorithms, but might look at BP relating to inputs and outputs
>
>
>
> Ed: yes, separate concerns
>
>
>
> Jeremy: workflows out of scope
>
>
>
> Andrea: why focus on UCs rather than requirements?
>
> ... appears to refine UCR rather than move towards BPs
>
>
>
> Jeremy: rationale = arrange BP around narrative stories, i.e. UCs
>
> ... will ensure that BP does address real stories
>
> ... compress 48 UCs into a small number of narrative stories
>
>
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> sounds good to me!
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 from me
>
> Jeremy: consolidation and mapping requirements to stories allows us to
> check completeness
>
>
>
> <jtandy> [4.7 Publishing geographical data](
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#PublishingGeographicalData
> )
>
> Jeremy: BP will not recommend encodings?
>
>
>
> Ed: this would be a big gap, risks making the BP not meet expectations?
>
>
>
> Ed, Jeremy: provide examples, but not exclusive list - make it clear that
> other techniques would be possible.
>
>
>
> Ed: BP should be as complete as possible; self-contained as far as possible
>
>
>
> Chris: BP should include list of formats, with comments on pros and cons
> of each format
>
>
>
> Ed: how long will it take to consolidate themes? How many?
>
>
>
> <ChrisLittle> suggest 6 rather than 12 narratives
>
> Jeremy: no more than 12; BP document must be short-enough ... ; 1-11 took
> 3 hours, 12-48 to go
>
>
>
> ANOB
>
>
>
> Ed: use discussion tab on
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation
>
>
>
> <AndreaPerego> Around 10 would be reasonable - 6 are probably not enough
> to cover all the relevant use cases.
>
> Book travel to Sapporo asap
>
>
>
> No direct flights to Sapporo
>
>
>
> Best prices are via Tokyo
>
>
>
> <ChrisLittle> bye(
>
> <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
>
> <AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye!
>
> <eparsons> thanks simon !
>
> <LarsG> Thx, bye
>
> <ChrisLittle> bye (squeak, squeak)
>
> <ahaller2> thanks, bye
>
> <MattPerry> bye
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Ed Parsons *Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
> www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>
-- 


*Ed Parsons* Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
www.edparsons.com @edparsons
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 11:05:58 UTC

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