- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:05:57 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of last week's meeting are at
http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-sdw-minutes
As usual, a text snapshot is included below
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
04 Nov 2015
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151104
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
kerry, BartvanLeeuwen, jtandy, Linda, frans,
billroberts, MattPerry, SimonCox, ahaller2, ChrisLittle,
AndreaPerego
Regrets
Ed, Phil
Chair
kerry
Scribe
simon
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Sapporo update
2. [6]future work plan
3. [7]UCR document
* Resolutions
1. [8]Minutes approved
2. [9]No 90m global grid
3. [10]Can consider new OGC work
_________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2015
<kerry> scribe: simon
<frans> some help for scribes:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
<kerry> scribenick: simoncox
<phila_irc_only> Apologies from me, I can't dial in
(I'm next to a municipal swimming pool and about to
leave to go home) Normal service should be resumed
next week
<Linda> The agenda is:
<Linda> 1. Sapporo F2F Update and discussion 2. Future
work plan 3. UCR second public draft and remaining
issues 4. Candidate best practice topics for BP doc
<jtandy> present_ ChrisLittle
<kerry>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html
[13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Tele
con20151021
<jtandy> [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/10/21-sdw-minutes
<phila_irc_only> agenda:
[15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Tele
con20151104
<Linda> +1
<frans> +1
<jtandy> +1
<ahaller2> +1
Motion: approve minutes
<billroberts> sorry, missed the 21 Oct call
<kerry> +2
No objections (but wasn't there
<kerry> +1
<ChrisLittle> missed 21st too
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<ahaller2> patent call
<jtandy>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html
[13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151021
[14] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/21-sdw-minutes
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151104
[16] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Sapporo update
Discussion on candidate best practices for BP document
5-6 non-regular people, one new face offered testing
and implementation
Significant offer of resources
(name not known)
<jtandy> [17]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
<ChrisLittle> * was it Tanagi-san?
1. Linking data
2. publishing with clear semantics
3. anabling discovery
4. assignment of identifiers
5. large datasets
not addressed: exposing through APIs
not discussed - spatial, observations
(also help from data on the web best practice group)
OPPORTUNITY! control our scope
drop topics that are general as they are already under
control in dwwg
incl. discovery, assignment of identifiers
Cite solutions from DWBP where they have a scope that
matches SDWWG requirements and expectations
e.g.
1. publishing data with clear semantics - focus on
semantics of spatial relationships
2. enabling discovery, 3. linking data - Ed not
enamoured of current SDIs - catalog ... service
endpoint ... query endpoint - this is NOT 'data on the
web'
<billroberts> +1 to Ed's reported opinion. I generally
lose the will to live before finding anything useful
from INSPIRE
can't trawl endpiints, leverage links - have to
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
*query*
Browsing not supported.
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
(this was consensus in meeting)
<kerry> +1
<Linda> +1
what is this catalogue thing?
<kerry> +q?
<kerry> -q?
frans: reduce scope will have big impact on BP
document
SImonCOx: clarify distinction being made between
catalogues and search-engines
Kerry: it was findability
<ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon's comment
things being harvested into catalogue/index need to be
more link rich and support finding atomic items, not
just datasets
<AndreaPerego>
[18]http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/
andrea: geodcat-ap - has API for CSW
convert from ISO 19115/19139 -> RDF/RDFa
optimise what is exposed through catalogues
can embed metadata in HTML pages, more findable
but not enough links!
findable but still not _linked_
<frans> Yes, promoting assigning URIs to things will
be a big step forward
simon: Capabilities response needs to include links,
not lists!
<jtandy> +1 to AndreaPerego 's comment
billroberts: difficult to link to a specific item
... want boundary of Edinburgh, not shapefile of all
LGA boundaries
<ChrisLittle> +1 to granularity
<frans> In favour of INSPIRE: it has semantics that
are harmonized in Europe. Quite an achievement!
<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to explain about
the bug in your ear at TPAC
(THat looks like a strong requirement)
<jtandy> also +1 to getting the granularity of linking
right
Bartvanleeuwen: ? spatial properties should be links ?
Bart: need adapter to expose existing services (WFS)
as linked data
... started work in context of Dutch fire services
... demo later this month?
Jeremy: timbl keen that we cover OpenStreetMap
<frans> Do we have a liaison with OSM?
<ChrisLittle> +1 to OSM UC
OSM - great adoption, must be doing something right
<kerry>
[19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BP
s_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC
SImon: tools?
<frans> Or a contact with linkedgeodata.org (which is
based on OSM)?
<jtandy> @frans ... no liaison yet - but I think we
can chase up some links to those orgs
Kerry: proposed new item, joint not w DWWP group
Hadley Beeman, Dan Brickley
<frans> They will be glad to hear TimBL supports their
efforts
[18] http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/
[19]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BPs_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC
future work plan
Kerry: main Wiki page updated w updated workplan
[20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page#Del
iverables
<frans> I am not screaming
BP to be published December
<ChrisLittle> OGC WGs can issue drafts easily
<jtandy> SimonCox: OGC working drafts are just posted
to pending documents - no review period
QUestion around how OGC can publish 'public working
drafts'
and how fast
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note about proximity
between BP FPWD and OGC TC
<ChrisLittle> +1 to simon corrcting Jermey
OGC TC in Sydney week commencing 30 November
<jtandy> SimonCox: can you reverse the order of
starting Time and SSN work?
Future meetings will consider SSN, Time for half of
meeting
alternating weeks, approx.
Coverage deliverable - work to start in March
[20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page#Deliverables
UCR document
<billroberts> can we add a hopefully very brief item
to today's agenda: confirmation of date/location of
next F2F?
6-8 February meeting at Geonovum, on Best Practices
<billroberts> 6/7 Feb is Sat/Sun - that's ok for me,
but just to check no mistake?
<Linda> It's 8 - 10, right?
3-day meeting (lined up with local linked-data
meeting)
8-10 February meeting at Geonovum, on Best Practices
scribe: and other topics for SDWWG
OGC TC in SYdney - report to GeoSemantics domain
working group
<jtandy> (the final day of the next F2F, 10th Feb,
should include interactions with the Linked Data
community to validate our work so far)
1/2 hour
will proceed with regular teleconference anyway (7am
Sydney time)
<frans>
[21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/17)
Motion: issue 17 - medium resolution global grid?
<frans> PROPOSAL: The candidate requirement "It should
be possible to represent a medium resolution global
grid, e.g. 90m raster data across the globe." will not
be included in the UCR document.
-1
sorry - +1
<ChrisLittle> +1 not include
<jtandy> +1 ... not include this requirement
<billroberts> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<Linda> +1
<Ian_Holt> +1
<frans>
[22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27
RESOLUTION: No 90m global grid
<frans> PROPOSAL: Add a note to the description of the
"Coverage in Linked Data" deliverable in the UCR
document: "The OGC is currently working on refinements
of ISO 19123 (in particular, the OGC Coverage
Implementation Schema 1.1), which could result in
specifications that allow a higher level of
interoperability of implementations. The Working Group
will also consider these forthcoming standards."
Motion: issue 27 - add note that new OGC work is in
scope
<ChrisLittle> +1
(can't change charter, but can point it out in UCR
document)
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/17)
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27
+1
<Linda> +1
<kerry> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Ian_Holt> +1
<jtandy> +0
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to talk about F2F
Jeremy: OGC CIS is too closely coupled to GML
approach?
<ChrisLittle> +1 to looser rather than tighter
coupling
Jeremy: must avoid close coupling with implementation
choice.
<jtandy> +1 to considering them
RESOLUTION: can consider new OGC work
on coverage implementations
Next meeting: 2015-11-11
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye
<ChrisLittle> bye and thank you
<Ian_Holt> thanks. bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<Linda> Bye!
<ahaller2_> thx bye
<MattPerry> bye
<billroberts> thx!
<frans> bye! And thanks Kerry & Simon
Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
_________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 12:06:11 UTC