- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:30:05 +0100
- To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
You are duly added to the record at http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes On 16/07/2015 12:05, Ed Parsons wrote: > 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 >> -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 12:30:16 UTC