- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:01:56 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes from last week's call are at
http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-sdw-minutes
And a snapshot is provided below for convenience. I have added in the
regrets that were missing.
For future reference, you can add to the regrets list by typing
regrets+ {name}
And they get included in the minutes (i.e. it's the same as for present+).
Any more probs with last week's minutes, pls let me know.
Cheers
Phil.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
20 May 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
kerry, DanhLePhuoc, Rachel, PhilippeThiran,
Alejandro_Llaves, eparsons, Linda, AZ, Frans, MattPerry,
LarsG, Jitao, ErichBremer, philippe, Ian_Holt, aharth,
CoryHenson, cory
Regrets
Jeremy, phila, Josh, Clemens Portele, Simon Cox, Stefan
Lemme, Andrea Perego
Chair
Kerry
Scribe
eparsons
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Use case timeline to First Public Working Draft
2. [5]use case actions
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 20 May 2015
<Frans> No scribe to record that action!
<scribe> scribe: eparsons
<kerry> [6]http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html
<Frans> +1
<PhilippeThiran> +1
<billroberts> +1
Ed +1
<ErichBremer> +1
<Ian_Holt> +1
<Linda> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<LarsG> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
Resolved
<kerry> ttps://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Kerry: patent call
<kerry> resolved: accept last weeks minutes
Kerry: Test of webex from Frans..
Frans: Press "Share my screen and chose app"
... Also able to share single window..
<billroberts> looks good to me
<AZ> I see all the window fine
<MattPerry> I can see it
<Linda> looks good
<Rachel> looks fine for me
Frans: Presentation - publication of 700m triple dataset
... Metadata exposed as html metadata witch spatial aspects
... Spatial data uses Dublin core location subject, not at best
practice as such could be standardised ?
... Spatial coverage predicate used - extent as geometry as
GeoSparql
... Geometry expressed as Lat/long in WGS84 transformed from
Dutch National Grid
... Current standard prefer WGS84 it seems ( Default ? )
... WKT needs CRS ref to be stripped
... WGS84 OK for this applications level of accuracy - Higher
accuracy cm's would be difficult !!
... Need to indicate type of data e.g. Vector
... Need to also express resilution
... Not currently possible would be useful..
... Metadata also includes sparql endpoint so possible to
querry
... Geometry allows geocoding...
... Spatial functions supported including creation of a point
from Coordinates - could be used for a "where am I" app on a
mobile phone
... Use of Virtuoso tool has some limitations
... Demo of query to return addresses with postal code - uses
semantics from BAG vocab
<ErichBremer> Any thought to relative spatial data? For
example, a symbolic WKT polygon that uses URIs of things as
coordinates and that the actual coordinates are attached to
those URIs instead of coded onto the WKT string itself?
Frans: Demo of query of global semantics alongside national
vocab based semantics
Kerry: Questions
<ErichBremer> see mine
ErichBremer: Relative spatial data URL's as coordinates ?
Frans: This would be a mutation is coords changed - new object
Kerry: URI for everypoint ?
ErichBremer: No URI attached to triangle symbolic link
billroberts: Nice illustration - lots of ways to express
spatial in RDF - but too many !!
... How to chose whats appropriate is a challenge
Kerry: Quality of presso ?
<ErichBremer> and link to the data?
aharth: Nice to have presentation linked to wiki
kerry: important for people who can't get webex to work
<Linda> [7]http://lod.geodan.nl/basisreg/bag/
[7] http://lod.geodan.nl/basisreg/bag/
Use case timeline to First Public Working Draft
Kerry: Agenda switch - use case timeline propsoal
... Need to move fwd on use cases need help from group to
complete
... Dedicate next meeting to this.. 3rd June vote to progress
doc to first public working draft
... This has more status
... Group needs to agree to this - as we take ownership of it
at this point
<AZ> A FPWD has a permanent URL and a fixed date of
publication, while an ED has one URL for a document that
changes all the time
Kerry: Allows us to move on to BP Doc
... According to charter already a year late
... Think this is achievable any comments ?
<kerry> topic; Use Case Actions
use case actions
Kerry: Lots of Actions now on tracker...
... Using w3c tracker at the moment...
<Alejandro_Llaves> [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
[8] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/
Kerry: Close my use cases after review
<kerry> close action-38
<trackbot> Closed action-38.
<kerry> close action-35
<trackbot> Closed action-35.
<kerry> action-34 close
Kerry: Completed on spreadsheet doc
<kerry> action-33 close
<kerry> action -28 close
<trackbot> Error finding '-28'. You can review and register
nicknames at <[9]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
[9] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users
<kerry> action-28 close
Alejandro_Llaves Finished coverage transfer to html - Next
phase to collect issues and comments that need group
disscussion
Alejandro_Llaves move these to tracker
Kerry: will also cover next week
... Added new comments when making changes to Use Cases
Alejandro_Llaves New reqs need to be added therefore
Alejandro_Llaves: Like people to check for missing reqs and add
comments in spreadsheet
Kerry: Pick on Someone else with actions.. Mattperry
Mattperry: UC 16 can be closed
<kerry> close action-15
<trackbot> Closed action-15.
<kerry> clsoe action-19
<kerry> close action-19
<trackbot> Closed action-19.
<kerry> ack
<kerry> close action-27
<trackbot> Closed action-27.
billroberts: Action 27 is duplicate of 18 both to be closed
Frans: Action - work in progress
Kerry: Leave principles stuff out ? Does this work ?
Frans: associated email thread needs to be worked through
Kerry: bring back next week
... Last 5 mins any other issues to do for use case ?
Frans: Creating issues in tracker works well
... Happy !!!
Alejandro_Llaves: How do we review as a group html doc before
it becomes First Working Draft
... Appreciate wider review before this step..
<AZ> My experience in previous groups: two reviewers within the
group provide comments
Kerry: Editors can ask one or two people to review...
<AZ> about the editorial draft
Kerry: Editors need to set the time
Alejandro_Llaves: Some people have more expertise , so editors
can select appropriate people
<Alejandro_Llaves> of course, volunteers for reviews are
appreciated!
Frans: Technical talks ?
Kerry: Not for next few weeks
<Alejandro_Llaves> the idea would be to look at the different
use cases for a specific deliverable, check the description,
working links, etc.
Kerry: Thx Frans
<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
<ErichBremer> thank you
<LarsG> thanks, bye
<Linda> bye
<ChrisLittle> bye
<Rachel> thanks, bye
<Ian_Holt> Thanks
<AZ> bye
Thanks all - bye
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 17:02:03 UTC