- 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