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

[minutes] 2015-07-29

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:54:16 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55B8E918.3060200@w3.org>
As ever, the minutes of today's meeting are available at
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/29-sdw-minutes

A text snapshot is included below.


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

29 Jul 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/29-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           phila, kerry, Alejandro_Llaves, SimonCox, Linda,
           BartvanLeeuwen, Armin, Bill, Kerry, Matt, jtandy,
           MattPerry, AndreaPerego, joshlieberman, billroberts,
           Chris, frans

    Regrets
           Lars_Svensson, Rachel_Heaven, Ed_Parsons,
           Clemens_Portele, Stefan_Lemme, Lewis

    Chair
           kerry

    Scribe
           armin

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21
          2. [5]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/22
          3. [6]best practice editors' report
          4. [7]ceo-ld
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 29 July 2015

    me

    <kerry> scribe: armin

    <kerry> scribenick: ahaller2

    <phila> proposed: Accept last week's minutes
    [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

    <kerry> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

    <AndreaPerego> Was not there.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <phila> +1

    <phila> resolved: Accept last week's minutes
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

    Kerry: Patent Call

    phila: Patent Call is important
    ... on the W3C side of things, an automated email will be send
    to the group which asks the same question as the OGC patent
    call.

    Kerry: Use Cases and Requirements, two issues to resolve today

[11]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21

    Kerry: ISSUE-21: phrasing of the linkability requirement

    <Alejandro_Llaves> "Spatial data on the Web should be linkable
    (by explicit relationships between different data in different
    data sets), to other spatial data and to or from other types of
    data."

    Alejandro: 'facts' were changed to 'features'
    ... 'explicit relationships between data' is the new proposal

    <AndreaPerego> "Feature" is a notion that is not
    straightforward for non-specialists.

    <phila> I like that wording

    <phila> issue-21?

    <trackbot> issue-21 -- phrasing of the linkability requirement
    -- pending review

    <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21

    jtandy: like the current wording

    <phila> RESOLVED: That Issue-21 be rephrased as shown above

    <joshlieberman> "facts" is sufficiently generic as to not cause
    problems, I suppose.

    jtandy: ISSUE-21 resolved as discussed with new phrasing

[13]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/22

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/22

    <SimonCox> @josh - 'facts' now changed to 'data'

    kerry: ISSUE-22 next to discuss

    <joshlieberman> @SimonCox -- just can't keep up...

    <Alejandro_Llaves> "There should be a standardised way for
    expressing spatial relationships between spatial entities.
    These relationships can be topological, mereological,
    directional or distance related."

    Alejandro: change of phrasing, changed to 'spatial
    relationships'

    +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <phila> Seems like a no brainer to me

    <Linda> +1

    <phila> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <jtandy> 'spatial relationships' works for me ... didn't know
    what meronymy meant!

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    ISSUE-22 resolved, using new wording

    <SimonCox> Voges out for 16

    <phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-22 using new wording

    <joshlieberman> "partOf"

    Andrea: can we use another term than mereological

    <SimonCox> "part-whole"

    Andrea: can we find another way to rephrase it?

    <SimonCox> whole

    Kerry: It is in the Use Case document, not Best practises,
    acceptable for me

    jtandy: Did not know that the word existed 20 minutes ago

    <SimonCox> Ignorami!

    Kerry: Are we happy to leave it?

    jtandy: Happy as it is if it is an example

    +1

    <phila> [14]A definition of Mereology

      [14] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mereology

    <Linda> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

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

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

best practice editors' report

    <AndreaPerego> +1 but it should leave open the possibility of
    replacing it with something less specialistic

    jtandy: URI of the Wiki page for the BP Consolidation
    ... we have 1-17, 32-41 of the use cases consolidated now

    <jtandy>
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Talk:BP_Consolidation

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

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

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

    <SimonCox> Comments on the GeoJSON list: "seems to be taking a
    shotgun approach with many people throwing in their favorite
    bits. I’d hate to imagine the outcome if a committee were to
    design something based on it. "

    jtandy: aim was to make them easy to find in search engines

    <SimonCox> (That's comments on the UCR document)

    jtandy: and other considerations in the discussion page on the
    wiki

    <ChrisLittle> zakim present

    Kerry: publishing a spatial data, consumers can use the data in
    some other context, and want the dataset be usable

    <ChrisLittle> zakim present+

    <jtandy>
    [18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narrat
    ives

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

    jtandy: if you have ideas like the one kerry raised, please put
    them on the wiki
    ... common themes are, linking data, publishing data with clear
    semantics
    ... partial overlap with data on the web best practise group
    ... third theme, expose datasets through APIs
    ... enabling discoverability is another theme
    ... assigning identifiers is fifth theme
    ... expressing geospatial information is the last theme
    ... linda provided another use case, geometry is 95% of the
    data size in the Dutch use case

    Linda: put this in the use case as a question, if optimisation
    is needed

    <joshlieberman> Is this an argument for implementing the
    distinction between feature and geometry, so that geometries
    can be linked in as needed?

    jtandy: implication of performance in queries with polygons
    with for example 5000 points
    ... the number of times new things are coming out is slowing
    down, so I am comfortable there won't be too many other themes

    Kerry: the themes make sense to me

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Berlin

    <SimonCox> Jeremy's brain is disorganized in prose, but awesome
    in pictures!

    phila: some of the use cases at the bottom of the document make
    references to the earlier ones, which might make it easier for
    you, jeremy

    <phila> [19]Berlin Workshop

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/berlin/

    phila: I am organizing a workshop in Berlin
    ... location as discussed by kerry is a use case, how do I
    authoritatively refer to a location in my dataset
    ... the group members that are close should consider to
    participate
    ... EU project Share PSI is organising it
    ... hosted by Fraunhofer

    Josh: Happy to see that the first theme is linking
    ... it is important to have clear semantics of the entity that
    is linked to
    ... directionality is important in use cases, having links to
    go to the data this data is derived from is valuable for
    findability
    ... who is using the data should be a part of the theme

    jtandy: backlinks are equally important, put it under enabling
    discoverability
    ... we need to think hard how we can enable these backlinks in
    our best practise document
    ... we may need to create our own examples for that

    Kerry: could not see the backlinks coming up in any use case
    ... if it is important we should have a use case

    jtandy: e.g. I arrive in a new place, what is available near
    me?

    Kerry: maybe not the best use case, but we can find one

    Linda: developed a testbed
    ... would like to share it with the group
    ... to get feedback

    <jtandy> +1 from me to Linda's offer to share ideas about
    test-beds

    Linda: expect it to be ready end of this week or next

    Kerry: rather put it on the wiki

    <SimonCox> Chipmunk Chris again

    rofl

    <SimonCox> Almost as funny as the cricket

    <joshlieberman> Take those acorns out of your mouth!

    <kerry> chris, can you type on the irc?

    <ChrisLittle> give up on audio suggest that use case is
    critical data sent out, need to update who did we send to?

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask what we mean with
    linkable geometries

    <billroberts> +1 to separating feature and geometry

    Andrea: wondered whether make links more explicit, big
    geometries that are attached to data may require that

    jtandy: I will put this one up on the wiki
    ... treat geometries as first class citizens

    <Zakim> billroberts, you wanted to talk about a use case for
    backlinks

    Bill: if geometries are only defined as part of features, other
    people can not reference the geometry. Geometries with URIs
    gives them equality

    <AndreaPerego> An example from Ian Davis Placetime.com (back in
    2003):
    [20]http://vocab.org/placetime/geopoint/wgs84/X-126.817Y46.183

      [20] http://vocab.org/placetime/geopoint/wgs84/X-126.817Y46.183

    <ChrisLittle> get Bill to write that down

    yes please

    <phila> [21]NeoGeo

      [21] http://geovocab.org/doc/neogeo/

    phila: neogeo does exactly that according to my understanding,
    geometry as a first class citizen

ceo-ld

    <phila> [22]CEO-LD project

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2015/ceo-ld/

    phila: small project, between UK and China
    ... W3C and Codata
    ... experts in satellite and earth observation data come
    together to enable this group to write the coverage deliverable
    ... offering to help, but not taking over this deliverable
    ... our SDW group still has the authority, the ceo-ld group is
    only there to help

    <ChrisLittle> CEO may cause confusion: international Committee
    for Earth Observations

    jtandy: will be on holiday for the next meeting

    Kerry: reminder to register for TPAC

    <phila> [23]TPAC page

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/TPAC/

    <AndreaPerego> Won't be able to come.

    <kerry>
    [24]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_Sapporo_F2F

      [24] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_Sapporo_F2F

    Kerry: tell us on this page if you are coming

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    <SimonCox> FWIW - Australia 99/7, Rogers 50 n.o. - rain stops
    play

    andrea: use cases missing?

    Kerry: the github version is still developing, but the other
    document was frozen about 3 weeks ago

    <phila> It was frozen following the WG resolution in early
    June, modulo the editors adding in links to the open issues
    (which was the resolution). I expect a new version to be
    published simultaneously with the FPWD of the BP doc

    Kerry: the use case documents will be a working document up
    until the end of this working group potentially

    <Alejandro_Llaves>
    [25]https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/88

      [25] https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/88

    Alejandro: Simon wrote down that there were some interesting
    comments in the geojson mailing list

    <joshlieberman> --with a grain of salt--

    Kerry: if the comments are not submitted yet to our public
    comment list, we should suggest to them to do so

    Simon: will do that

    <ChrisLittle> bye

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <BartvanLeeuwen> bye

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    <jtandy> bye

    <Linda> bye

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye

    closing

    <MattPerry> bye

    <billroberts> bye

    bye
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:54:18 UTC

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