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

[Minutes] 2015-07-22

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:55:43 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55AFBCFF.5030403@w3.org>
As ever, minutes from today's meeting are at 

We had an interesting discussion about possible narratives that will 
help to structure and contextualise the BPs. Text snapshot below for 

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

22 Jul 2015


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150722

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-irc


           PhilA, Kerry, Frans, Alejandro_Llaves, SimonCox, Rachel,
           LarsG, joshlieberman, Linda

           Bill Roberts Jeremy Tandy, Andrea




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]UCR Issue 11
          2. [6]use cases isue-11
          3. [7]BP Doc
          4. [8]Summer
          5. [9]TPAC

    <trackbot> Date: 22 July 2015

    <kerry> preent+ kerry

    <kerry> chair: kerry

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribenick: phila

    propsed: Accept last week's minutes

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html

    <kerry> [11]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html

    proposed: Accept last week's minutes

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html

    <eparsons> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    +0 wasn't present

    <Linda> +0 wasn't there

    <LarsG> +1

    <Frans> +0 was not there

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/15-sdw-minutes.html

    <SimonCox> (+1 but I was minuter)

    usual patent call

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

UCR Issue 11

    <joshlieberman> +0 wasn't there

use cases isue-11


    <trackbot> issue-11 -- Is the provenance requirement in scope?
    -- pending review

    <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/11

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

    kerry: Points to Frans' summary

    Frans: It's about provenance req. There's a proposal for
    ... First note has proposal which is...

    "Ensure alignment of models or vocabularies for describing
    provenance that exist in the geospatial and semantic web
    domains. Examples are the W3C provenance ontology (PROV-O) and
    the OGC metadata specfication (ISO-19115)

    PROPOSED: That Issue-11 is resolved by amending the wording to
    ""Ensure alignment of models or vocabularies for describing
    provenance that exist in the geospatial and semantic web
    domains. Examples are the W3C provenance ontology (PROV-O) and
    the OGC metadata specfication (ISO-19115)" and that this
    applies to all deliverables, not just BP

    <SimonCox> There is a significant provenance hook in existing,
    widely adopted spatial metadata standards. It is optional
    there, but there are alternatives with more general adoption.
    THe requirements is to not let these drift too far from each

    kerry: I would say that we just want to be sure that
    Provenenace *can* be used, cf. required to be used

    eparsons: I'm happy with that

    SimonCox: I just typed my comment. AIUI part of my concern is
    that we have 2 provenance standards, both widely used.
    ... My understanding is that these shouldn't drift apart from
    each other

    Frans: I think that's what is meant by the requirement. Prov is
    not something that is unique to spatial, but we should
    acknowledge that there is existing modelling of prov
    ... in the spatial data world and we want alignment

    joshlieberman: I wanted to address that assertion. There's
    nothing special about spatial data prov? There is -
    specifically that spatial data involved info from 2 sources
    ... one is characteristic of something and then there is the
    location of that something
    ... Different data may come from differnet agents/processes. So
    we need to make sure that the prov tools can address that and
    that looks like a special req for spctial data that we should
    be addressing

    Frans: So that means you don't agree with the current phrasing

    joshlieberman: I looked at the issue which says there's nothing
    special, I think there is
    ... and we need to be aware of that when recommending a method.
    ... So I want to assert that prov is in scope for this WG

    kerry: I think it's worth making that statement, but I don't
    think it's in conflict with the proposal
    ... I'm worried by something Simon said about diverging - are
    we going to try and make sure that PROV-O and 19115 don't
    ... I don't think that's our business

    SimonCox: I agree that it's not our business to try and fix up
    other people's standards, but if we're in the business of
    distilling BPs for SDW then we need to take into acount all the
    things on the table

    kerry: OK, yes
    ... More comments? It feels like consensus

    <joshlieberman> Best practices should in all likelihood point
    at the efforts that are in fact currently looking to align
    PROV-O and 19115.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <Frans> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    RESOLUTION: That Issue-11 is resolved by amending the wording
    to ""Ensure alignment of models or vocabularies for describing
    provenance that exist in the geospatial and semantic web
    domains. Examples are the W3C provenance ontology (PROV-O) and
    the OGC metadata specfication (ISO-19115)" and that this
    applies to all deliverables, not just BP

    <SimonCox> +1 Josh - like ISO 19115-2 revision ...

    kerry: Maybe this is a good time to report on the UCR

    phila: Just to report that
    [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20150723/ will
    happen tomorrow

      [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20150723/

    <Alejandro_Llaves> yay!

    <eparsons> woohoo

    <kerry> calp,clap

    phila: Thanks all concerned, please don't tweet that link yet

    <joshlieberman> +1 to phila's guidance

BP Doc

    kerry: I was expecting Payam to be here ... none of our BP
    editors are here today
    ... I can point you to
    ... There's some work going on wrt. the stories

    <SimonCox> (Yahoo recommends =D> =D> =D>)

    kerry: and consolidation


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

    phila: I think it's this one

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

    kerry: There was considerable discussion about narratives
    ... as a data publisher, I need to do X and we need a little
    story around that
    ... so Jeremy has been trying to push that forward.
    ... we also wanted to talk about the user perspective
    ... We think there might be 7 - 8 stories to include. "As a
    publisher of SDW I want to..."
    ... think of that as a high level task that enables us to
    structure the document
    ... so open to the floor to make a suggestion
    ... you might find it easier to begin with I am a

    eparsons: I guess mine is tied to the UC that I put in and
    that's really the issue that Google is concerned with
    ... That is, how can we identify the geospatial content on the
    Web rather than just crawling HTML.
    ... We can parse the page and work out if it's talking about a
    location but it's not great.
    ... the other side of that is how can we tag our own content so
    that our pages can be understood
    ... it's about a methodology for identifying spatial content on
    the Web.
    ... I'm not proposing a specific tech method
    ... It's kind of a meta problem in a way

    kerry: That's what we want
    ... ny comments or should I start asking people specifically?

    Frans: RRSAgent, draft minutres
    ... RRSAgent, draft minutes
    ... Last week I did a presentation about the current state of
    affairs about Linked Spatial data on the Web and did some
    ... It's still hard to do. Just publishing metadata is now more
    or less possible, especially if you look at the Geo_DCAT AP
    ... One story I'd like to see as a publisher is how you publish
    metadata about spatial datasets that might be useful to a WMS,
    WFS etc.
    ... The immediate advantage would be that the data would be
    crawlable and discoverable

    joshlieberman: I'd like to mention some work being domne at ??
    to catalogue WMSs
    ... The biggest problem is having links *to* services that
    provide spatial data
    ... for example, there may be links to map images or features
    in their Web pages, but going from that to the service is
    ... Decent metadata would help there
    ... that for me is the biggest challenge

    kerry: is this any differnet to the first story from Ed?

    eparsons: I would say that it is. It's a subset of my issue

    <SimonCox> Particularly because spatial data comes in an
    un-enumerable set of resources (with an an un-enumerable URI

    eparsons: We already have an established way using WCS, but the
    catalogue itself isn't very crawlable

    joshlieberman: So you, Ed, defined the problem domain. There is
    definitely fruit at whatever level it may be

    Frans: I think it's a change of perspective. Ed's story is
    mostly as a consumer (G as a consumer). My story is more as a
    ... It could apply to traditional data services. For e.g. if I
    wanted to record a stream from my ohone, that's spatial and I
    may want to publish metadata with that to make it discoverable

    <SimonCox> Crawlability?

    eparsons: This also highlights the differences between
    different communities. I'm looking at gthe broad mass market

    <joshlieberman> 2-way likability leads to crawl-ability

    eparsons: those people are not aware of catalogues etc. and
    just want a way of tagging
    ... the classic example is a store finder

    <joshlieberman> I meant (of course) linkability. Likability is

    <SimonCox> There are a finite set of stores.

    eparsons: how do they publish that content in a form that is
    better than a list of addresses? they're not going to use a
    19115 catalogue

    SimonCox: I was trying to tease out the tension between the
    Josh and Ed cases. My sense is that it's between continuous
    datasets when any request is a query cf. a set of stores
    ... We know that Web crawlers are good at following a finite
    set of links but they're not good at making sense of a DB where
    an infinite number of queries can be made

    <joshlieberman> +1 Simon - links between a single reference to
    a spatial datum and larger collections / metadata records /
    services enhances that and is an important part of evolving OG
    RESTful service binding

    eparsons: I think Simon's right. It's an issue we will need to
    deal with. Lots of spatial data sits in DBs that crawlers can't
    get to

    joshlieberman: This is usefully a current issue. You have the
    collection of services, enumerated data...
    ... and then you have the means of getting at them, which is
    specific queries. How do you get from one to the other. A
    single map image or feature data

    <SimonCox> Linked data does not play nice with queries

    joshlieberman: info derived from that to get to the rest of it
    is the challenge

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about LD API

    joshlieberman: A proposal for WFS is that when you get a
    response that links to info about how to use the thing it came
    ... perhaps via HHTP headers

    phila: [19]http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/

      [19] http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/

    <Linda> s/perghaps/perhaps/


      [20] http://example.data.gov/schools/12345


      [21] http://example.data.gov/schools/

    <eparsons> +1 to that !!!!

    <joshlieberman> [22]http://example.data.gov/schools/bbox then
    leads to more information about the collection, and is

      [22] http://example.data.gov/schools/bbox

    phila: Goes on about URIs as query parameters

    <kerry> ?q

    <joshlieberman> LD API is presently SPARQL -specific, but is
    certainly being used as guidance in OGC efforts to support more

    kerry: LD API isn't a formal standard

    eparsons: Things like that are all well and good but, again,
    Starbucks isn't going to set uop a WFS for its stores. It's a

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    kerry: I don't think we've got everything in our use cases from
    that discussion

    Alejandro_Llaves: One of the problems that was highlighted at
    the workshop was which kind of coordinate definitions was
    ... so we presented there our Map4RDF application where we have
    to check which spec was the spatial data defined? geoSPARQL?
    Something else? That was a problem for our work
    ... So it would be good to know which spec spatial data is

    kerry: You want to encode your data in a way that a service
    will understand how it's been done

    Alejandro_Llaves: If I develop a map client that shows spatial
    data, it would be good to know which encoding it follows rather
    than checking all possibilities

    phila: (sounds like dcterms:conformsTo to me ;-) )

    Frans: A differnet consumer story. I;m going to Naples in a few
    weeks. When I go somewhere strange, I want to know about my
    surroundings, so my basic question is...
    ... you have a need of location-based info. How do you get
    that? e.g. Find everything releant to me near where I am?
    ... perhaps from a profile

    kerry: The flip side is how to publish that

    phila: Suggests looking at CSV on the Web work for how to
    publish metadata for tables that adds in location data

    <joshlieberman> Actually, Starbuck has a fairly sophisticated
    GIS and spatial data services. So maybe not the best example!

    eparsons: That still sounds like too much. I'm hoping you only
    have to create a Web page with tags that helps interpretation
    ... Think village fete, not Starbucks
    ... Gives more detail. Then if I can crawl it and consume it

    phila: Suggests tagging with things like schema.org is still
    pretty specialist.

    eparsons: Yep, but we need to think non-specialist

    phila: I agree

    <SimonCox> schema.org definitely not DL :-)

    Frans: I think it was interesting that Ed just mentioned, the
    distinction between publisher and consumer is one, we now also
    have expert and amateur
    ... that gives us 4 stories for a start, or is it 8?

    kerry: Not sure all stories will fit into those categories but
    I like the idea

    <Rachel_> will type instead

    <SimonCox> Cat on keyboard?

    <Rachel_> mic not working obs !

    <Rachel_> lots of use cases regarding publishing scientific

    <Rachel_> so this could be a common narrative

    <SimonCox> Scientific data often in tables ... see previous

    phila: Wonders if Rachel is thinking of ISA Tab?

    <Rachel_> done for now!

    <joshlieberman> Another issue (+1 Simon) is moving between
    links and tables - e.g. finding / following a link and
    retrieving a table that includes data "like" that linked to for
    further analysis.

    kerry: I had a similar story in my head. Thinking of a
    scientific publisher who isn't necessarily publishing
    geospatial but want to link to it
    ... I'm going to call a close to this discussion but it's been
    a useful discussion, thanks

    <eparsons> we can hear !!!

    <joshlieberman> +1 to kerry's voice


    <SimonCox> yes - you are loud and clear Kerry

    <SimonCox> Numbers down today

    kerry: Bemoans the shape of the Earth and its tilted axis

    <Frans> I have already had my little vacation

    kerry: we have warnings of BOP editors being off etc. Should we
    go into summer shut down? Will there be enough people
    participating in the coming weeks to start on other

    <SimonCox> Keep up momentum

    kerry: Ed and I keen to not stop for the summer

    <eparsons> press on with bp

    <Frans> I like the idea of continuing.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <eparsons> but bp only

    kerry: That's the otehr part of the question, do we stick to BP
    ... that seems to be the plan

    <Frans> So pause UCR work?

    kerry: or are there enough people who will be here to do the
    other things as well?

    <Linda> +1 to pressing on with bp

    kerry: No, Frans, we carry on with the UCR of course.

    <joshlieberman> +1 to continuing

    kerry: OK, we'll carry on with the BPs. Ed and I will do our
    best to carry on through July/August


    <joshlieberman> +1 to BP momentum partly because I think it
    will stimulate other activities to recognize in the BP.

    kerry: Please remember to register and let us know on the wiki
    whether you pkan to come, where you've registered or not
    ... A reminder that we'll spend a day on the BP doc to get it
    to FPWD
    ... and another day on the other 3 deliverables
    ... we hope to do some work before then on those but that's
    that's the plan
    ... if you can't come, but can dial in, again, please let us
    know on the wiki.
    ... remember it's 2 days, Min 26-Tue 27 October

    <SimonCox> Thanks all for good discussion

    <eparsons> thx to phila - super scribe !

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    kerry: Thanks everyine

    <joshlieberman> thanks, bye

    <eparsons> bye

    <Linda> thanks bye!

    <LarsG> Cheers

    <Frans> have a good day or night!
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 15:55:49 UTC

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