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

[Minutes] 2015-07-15

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:07:04 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55ACE468.6010606@w3.org>
As ever, the minutes from last week's meeting are at

A text snapshot is included below:

                              SDW WG Weekly

15 Jul 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-irc


           eparsons, Alejandro_Llaves, aharth, MattPerry, ahaller2,
           jtandy, LarsG, AndreaPerego

           phil, kerry, Rachel, Josh, Bill, Philippe, Stefan_Lemme,




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Approve Minutes
          2. [5]Patent Call
          3. [6]Use Cases and Requirements: ISSUE 13
          4. [7]ANOB
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    Is IRC functioning?

    <eparsons> YY

    Its prob ably my turn

    <eparsons> scribe: simoncox

Approve Minutes

    <eparsons> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html

       [9] 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> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    No objections - 2015-07-08 minutes approved

Use Cases and Requirements: ISSUE 13

    <eparsons> [11]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/13

      [11] 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> [12]http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/SSNValidation/

      [12] 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:

      [13] 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

    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
    html for example)

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/index.html

    Jeremy: use precedent from CSV on web

    <eparsons> Topic : Best Practice Consolidation Progress

    Ed: next - BP til now

    <Alejandro_Llaves> I did not


      [15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation

    Jeremy: has membership reviewed
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation ?
    ... propose working through UCs to pull out common themes to
    use in narrative?

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

    <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
    ... 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.
    ... 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


    Jeremy: BP will not recommend encodings?

    Ed: this would be a big gap, risks making the BP not meet

    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


    Ed: use discussion tab on

      [19] 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
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 12:07:17 UTC

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