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

Re: [Minutes] 2017-07-15

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>
Message-ID: <55ACE9CD.4030708@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

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