- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:03:44 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are, predictably enough, at
http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-sdw-minutes and there's a text version below.
Topics this week were:
* Editors for the BP doc are Lewis, Payam and Jeremy
* Audience for the BP doc;
* Time line for FPWD of BP doc
* TPAC registration, future OGC TCs.
Thanks to Linda for scribing.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
17 Jun 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
eparsons, Phil, kerry, Linda, LarsG, Frans, billroberts,
Alejandro_Llaves, ahaller2, MattPerry, AndreaPerego,
lewismc, PhilippeThiran, ChrisLittle
Regrets
Antoine, Zimmermann, Jeremy, Christine, Payam
Chair
eparsons
Scribe
linda
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Approve Minutes
2. [5]Patent Call
3. [6]Best Practice principles
4. [7]Proposed timeline
5. [8]TPAC Registration
6. [9]ANOB
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 17 June 2015
<eparsons> scribe: linda
<scribe> scribe: Linda
<phila> scribeNick: Linda
Approve Minutes
<eparsons> [10]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-sdw-minutes
[10] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-sdw-minutes
eparsons: opens meeting
... first item: approve last weeks minutes
<phila> Not present so can't say
<billroberts> +1
<eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes
<Frans> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<kerry> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<eparsons> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
+1
<lewismc> +0
<eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
Patent Call
eparsons: next item: patent call
<eparsons> [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Best Practice principles
eparsons: main topic today is the principles
... announcing the editors of the best practice document:
... one of whom is on the call: Lewis
<eparsons> Welcome Editors,
lewismc: introduces himself
<eparsons> Lewis McGibbney (NASA)
<eparsons> Payam Barnaghi (University of Surrey)
lewismc: looking forward to it, thanks for the opportunity
<eparsons> Jeremy Tandy (Met Office)
eparsons: other two are not here today, Payam and Jeremy. So we
have 3 editors.
... will be an important piece of work
<eparsons>
[12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Principles
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Principles
eparsons: proposal: work throught the BP principles together
during this call. Numbered them for easy of reference.
... principles are to create the context in which the BP is set
and the audience.
<ChrisLittle> +1 agreed
<lewismc> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
eparsons: important to agree on the idea that the audience of
the BP doc is going to be as broad as possible.
<lewismc> Absolutely
<Frans> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
<billroberts> +1 I agree with that
<ahaller2> +1
+1
<MattPerry> +1
<LarsG> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<kerry> +1 -- but remember scope of 5* linked data
Josh: would be useful to [...] (didn't hear)
phila: I hope that web people could read this without any
spatial literacy. It's about bridging that gap.
<joshlieberman> Best practices should address a broad audience,
but assert / communicate a reasonable level of geospatial
literacy.
thx josh
<AndreaPerego> +1 to PhilA
scribe: terminology will be important. BP should help people,
not turn them away.
... if possible, without turning away those who are GI experts.
<ChrisLittle> asking for earth, moon, mars etc ;-)
<Frans> +1 to PhilA
joshlieberman: example of spatial literacy:
... web community and spatial community define coordinates
differently.
<AndreaPerego> +1 again to PhilA about the terminology issue.
One example is "feature", that is a notion difficult to
understand without a geospatial background
eparsons: I agree, there are more examples of confusions like
this. So we need to make simplifications and give the minimal
explanation necessary.
<joshlieberman> We can assume little "prior" spatial literacy,
but let's improve on that.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to suggest a glossary might be
helpful
joshlieberman: the BP could assume little prior knowledge, but
should provide the necessary knowledge.
phila: e.g. things like coordinate ref system should be defined
somewhere because a lot of people do not know about this.
... although it is not our job to educate the world
Frans: simplicity and complexity don't have to be exclusive.
You could have simplicity and give the ability to drill down
into more detail and complexity.
kerry: In order to attain simplicity we have to give up
completeness.
eparsons: agreed. We'll have to ignore the edge cases.
<joshlieberman> So, include spatial omelets, but maybe leave
out souffle's
eparsons: or is there some middle way?
<phila> +1 to omlettes
eparsons: I like Josh's point
... proposes that we recognize a mainstream, web audience
... not necessary of professionals
<kerry> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
billroberts: if we don't aim at simplicity and mainstream
audience the risk is that we are just addressing a community
that already knows this.
... therefor simplicity is more important than completeness.
<AndreaPerego> +1 to BillRoberts
Frans: could we divide the audience into consumers and
publishers?
<ChrisLittle> +1 consumers versus publishers
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about the DWBP experience
eparsons: we may well want to come back to talking about that
division. Maybe divide the doc intos sections for those
audiences.
phila: discussed this also in data on the web group
<joshlieberman> Somewhat uncertain about this -- everyone with
a cellphone is a spatial data producer.
phila: 1st audience was producers, 2nd was consumers
<eparsons> PROPOSED: Audience is the broad web community of non
geo-experts
<Frans> +1
<phila> I would say 'an audience is...'
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to pseak on non-experts
<kerry>
[13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Land
sat_data_services_.28Best_Practice.2C_Time.2C_Coverage.29
[13]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Landsat_data_services_.28Best_Practice.2C_Time.2C_Coverage.29
kerry: we have a use case which describes the audience
eparsons: this is from the consumer point of view
<phila> [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/Talks/0612_phila_agile/#(17)
[14] http://www.w3.org/2015/Talks/0612_phila_agile/#(17)
phila: I presented this to ISO TC211 last week
... there must be a happy medium, in this group there is
spatial expertise available, what we should do is bring this
knowledge to the world
eparsons: So in general we agree on this principle of meeting
the needs of this broad audience
<AndreaPerego> +1
eparsons: this leads to the question of approach
... linked data is mentioned in a couple of the principles and
underlies the W3C way of publishing data, but not very much
adopted in OGC world
<joshlieberman> Does the GeoJSON / Leaflet-using web developer
need to know that leaflet is projecting the GeoJSON coordinates
into Web Mercator to work with a basemap?
eparsons: so do we suggest this broad audience uses a linked
data approach?
billroberts: it is a good basis, just starting with giving
everything a url. But lets not restrict ourselves to linked
data.
... also do things with JSON, as this is simpler than linked
data - or is believed so.
eparsons: requirements are discoverability and linkability.
Historically spatial data does not score well on these.
<kerry> but u can do rdf and json at the same time;
[15]http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
eparsons: linked data is a possible solution to both but might
not be the only one.
billroberts: yes a good solution, but don't advocate as the
only one if you want to reach a broad audience.
Frans: a lot of reqs point in the direction of linked data.
... maybe we don't have to be explicit about linked data, it
follows from the reqs.
... there's also a risk that we don't critically assess.
ChrisLittle: linked data isused a lot in catalogs, pointing to
the data.
<joshlieberman> I propose that we use linked data where
appropriate -- e.g. fine-grained data distribution and
discovery through mereo-topological relationships. Bounding-box
and dimensional discovery doesn't really benefit there.
ChrisLittle: my concern is that in our community we have a lot
of 4D data.
AndreaPerego: billroberts made a good point highlighting that
linked data can be difficult.
... important requirement is to be web-friendly.
<kerry> note from our charter: The scope of the Spatial Data on
the Web Working Group, SDWWG, is Web technologies as they may
be applied to location. Where relevant, it will promote Linked
Data using the 5 Stars of Linked Data paradigm, but this will
not be to the exclusion of other technologies.
eparsons: kerry can you remind us what to do to get 5 stars?
kerry: not difficult: use linked data standards, and use urls.
<Frans> 5 star Open Data: [16]http://5stardata.info/
[16] http://5stardata.info/
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about URIs and USB sticks
kerry: we aren't constrained to do linked data but I hope we
can promote it.
phila: fundamentals: URIs and HTTP
... don't use the web as a glorified USB stick
... or only publish metadata, not the data on the web
<Frans> We should get those fundamentals in the BP principles.
<joshlieberman> Increasingly clear that the path from linked
data to Web-friendliness is URI dereferencing practice.
billroberts: also help people from the broad community to find
the right tools
eparsons: we've got some level of agreement to use or inspire
to use linked data
<AndreaPerego> +1 to BillRoberts. Which also includes the
availability of data in mainstream formats, whenever possible /
feasible.
<Frans> Who will be in charge of t-shirts?
eparsons: we should print some tshirts with phila and josh
quotes about usb sticks and souffles.
... time to move on to the next topic
Proposed timeline
eparsons: which is the timeline.
... we should discuss reorganising the time frame.
... the bp is the next major piece of work.
<phila> End October
eparsons: we hope to get a first pwd at the time of the TPAC,
end of october.
<phila> Mon-Tue 26-27 October
eparsons: although during the summer work will slow down a bit
... the other deliverables, the SSN work, coverages, we could
potentially start in september and work parallel.
... so the BP document doesn't have to be complete before
starting on the rest. What is your opinion?
Frans: in the original planning bp deliverable had the same
deadline as Time ontology. What was the original thinking about
dependencies between deliverables?
eparsons: wasn't involved in the timeframe. Phil?
<lewismc> Where is the original timeline/rodmap for the WG? Can
someone provide a URL?
phila: we were trying to get this done in two years. We didn't
think so much about dependencies as about priorities.
<kerry> timeline is on charter
[17]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter
phila: driving force was deadline end of 2016.
<lewismc> thnx kerry
eparsons: other thoughs?
kerry: I support this, but I'm not keen on parallel meetings.
... try to keep the meetings in a single track, maybe alternate
every 2 weeks.
<AndreaPerego> +1 to Kerry
eparsons: I'm not getting the impression that our proposed
timeframe doesn't make sense, so we'll work some more on it.
TPAC Registration
<phila> [18]TPAC
[18] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/TPAC/
phila: W3C big annual get together, the W3C equivalent of the
OGC TC meeting.
... a lot of working groups meet there for 2 full days. E.g.
the geolocation working group and the Web of Things interest
group.
... everyone's welcome to come
... the wednesday is plenary day.
... this year it's in Sapporo, Japan. Our group is meeting
monday and tuesday of that week.
... there is a charge for attending, you can register now,
please do so.
... wednesday is recommended!
eparsons: will be there monday till wednesday
<joshlieberman> Would be lovely to afford it...
fee is about 85 dollars per day
phila: second 'holiday' is OGC TC meeting in the week of the
14th of september
... the idea is not to have a formal f2f there, but to have
this wednesday call take place from the TC.
ChrisLittle: OGC is using gotomeeting instead of webex.
<billroberts> sorry got to go - thanks, bye
phila: doesn't matter
ANOB
eparsons: any other business?
<AndreaPerego> I won't be in Sapporo, but I might be able to be
in Nottingham for the OGC TC.
kerry: we also have the idea to do the call from the OGC TC
meeting in Sidney in december.
<lewismc> Thanks folks
eparsons: that's it for this week
<lewismc> bb
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye
Bye all!
<LarsG> Thanks
<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
<kerry> bye!
<MattPerry> quit
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 14:03:34 UTC