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

[Minutes] 2015-11-18

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:08:28 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <564DADAC.20008@w3.org>
The minutes of yesterday's meeting are of course at 
http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes and copied below.


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

18 Nov 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           LarsG, billroberts, kerry, frans, ahaller2,
           BartvanLeeuwen, Linda, DanhLePhuoc, joshlieberman,
           MattPerry, KJanowicz, AndreaPerego

    Regrets
           Phil Archer, Jeremy Tandy, Scott Simmons, Clemens
           Portele, Rachel Heaven, Payam, Andreas Harth, Alejandro
           Llaves

    Chair
           ed

    Scribe
           armin haller

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]UCR issue 16
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2015

    <KJanowicz> I have not used zakim for a while but I can try

    i volunteer

    <frans> A deed of true altruism grants happiness for at least a
    day

    <eparsons> scribe ahaller2

    <kerry> scribe: armin haller

    eparsons: minutes from last week

    <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [6]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-sdw-minutes.html

       [6] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-sdw-minutes.html

    <kerry> scribeNick: ahaller2

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <frans> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <eparsons> Resolution : Approve last week's minutes

    <KJanowicz> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <LarsG> 0 (wasn't there...)

    <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

    eparsons: patent call

    <eparsons> [7]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

UCR issue 16

    frans: open ucr issues to be resolved. issue 16 is about valid
    time. original thought that it was a requirement for OWL time,
    but OWL time is not about how time is used.

    <KJanowicz> (but spatial is almost always spatio-temporal)

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on ssn at end of this ucr
    discussion

    <frans> "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing
    the time in which data are valid (e.g.
    [8]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)."

       [8] http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid).

    frans: similar to provenance issue. Problems related to valid
    time, but not a truly spatial problem. Solution could be to
    rephrase the requirement to above

    <SimonCox> Apologies for late arrival - connectivity problems

    frans: any objections to the proposal to rewrite?

    <joshlieberman> If others do not provide appropriate vocabulary
    for valid time predicates pertaining to features, does this
    group step in?

    kerry: closely related to the OWL time deliverable.
    ... requirement commonly used in sensor network use cases
    ... vocabulary for a valid time is in scope for our work

    <SimonCox> Concern is opening Pandora's box. Start with one
    predicate, how many more do we tackle?

    <frans> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to
    "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time
    in which data are valid (e.g.
    [9]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a
    requirement for OWL Time only.

       [9] http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid).

    <joshlieberman> "Valid" predicates also need to accommodate
    OWLtime as range.

    <SimonCox> And

    <SimonCox> "valid for what?"

    <joshlieberman> Predicates expressing valid time of a subject

    <KJanowicz> +1

    ChrisLittle: siding with kerry. It should be in scope. In the
    context of Mobile things, time recording is important.

    <SimonCox> (I'm pushing back to ensure clarity in requirements)

    eparsons: Are you happy with frans rephrasing?

    ChrisLittle: Yes

    kerry: I am unhappy with this, because if we say it is out of
    scope here, we may have problem to put it in for OWL time.

    <joshlieberman> +1 to Lars

    <SimonCox> +1 to Larsg

    <AndreaPerego> +1 to BP

    LarsG: I would rather say it is part of Best Practises

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to lars

    <KJanowicz> IMHO, valid time is often important to scope
    spatial phenomena and thus in scope

    <ChrisLittle> s/practises/practices/

    +1 for being in scope for OWL time

    <kerry> I think it should be considered as part of the owl-time
    work package -- while the solution may be delivered thru BP. So
    this is fine for me

    SimonCox: OWL time at the moment is very clean. Nothing in OWL
    time that relates description of time to something else.
    ... are we opening pandoras box if we introduced a valid time
    predicate
    ... in the OGC we ended up with three time predicates as first
    class citizens in the work

    <KJanowicz> Agreed, but data usage has changed and time is
    really key for space now

    <SimonCox> @Jano - the issue is whether a 'valid time'
    predicate should be part of OWL-Time - which other wise is only
    concerned with the description of time geometry/topology and
    not the way it is coonnected to things.

    KJanowicz: more important to temporal scope boundaries. For
    example, Crimea, when did the border change, or not

    <SimonCox> Valid time is certainly of interest to the BP

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon's concern over n predicates

    <SimonCox> @ahaller2 (three time predicates *on Observations*
    in OGC)

    <KJanowicz> @SimonCox: I understand and probably you are right
    that it should not go into owl-time

    frans: strongly oppose that, we would open pandoras box to
    include it

    <KJanowicz> I think it is a spatial problem. In most cases
    whenever we say space we mean spacetime

    <SimonCox> +1 KJanowicz Valid time is a general problem, but
    with a clear 'geometric' behaviour.

    [10]http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d3/d3.3/v0.1/#s312

      [10] http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d3/d3.3/v0.1/#s312

    <SimonCox> @ahaller2 +1 to modularization, to protect OWL-Time
    from specific predicates.

    ahaller2: valid time is important, but we may need to
    modularize the ontology and put such predicates in another
    ontology.
    ... see the complex time ontology in the wsmo time

    ChrisLittle: it is not in scope for the SDW working group. We
    probably find no one to champion it.

    joshlieberman: often we think that spatial data can be just
    data, but there is a commitment to a features in the real world
    and they change. Number of extremely complicated ways to do
    that. For me, a classic case for BP.

    <KJanowicz> @ChrisLittle: I see your point but viewing space
    without time is really getting more and more uncommon. Think
    about administrative borders, trajectories, modern
    mereotopology, and so forth.

    kerry: mechanism is not clear, but it is an example of an issue
    that we will go over again and again. It will be important in
    this working group, in SSN, in Coverage. The question is where
    do we deal with it?
    ... OWL Time is the right work package for it.
    ... tend to leave this question open for a bit longer

    eparsons: are you ok with frans' proposal to rewrite

    kerry: yes, but leave it for later

    <LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to
    "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time
    in which data are valid (e.g.
    [11]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a
    requirement for OWL Time WP

      [11] http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid).

    LarsG: proposes a rephrase

    frans: work packages are not defined yet, are we distinguishing
    them from deliverables :-)

    eparsons: we need to record the requirement not how it is met,
    yet

    <SimonCox> (Maybe second deliverable re Time could be a method
    for registering predicates?)

    eparsons: are you ok with LarsG's proposal?

    frans: yes, but we talked about work packages suddenly

    <kerry> nb: where it is delivered is NOT in the Requirment
    under lars proposal -- just where the issue goes!

    frans: editors/group will have an enormous amount of liberty in
    interpreting requirements anyway

    +1 LarsG rephrase

    frans: it is to make editors aware of requirements

    <KJanowicz> My feeling is that if we exclude this too early, we
    will have to revisit it later on

    <kerry> +q

    <ChrisLittle> +1 no URI therefore does not matter! ;)

    kerry: it is a clear requirement, but we are too careful about
    the phrasing at the moment.
    ... at the end, if we address the requirement later, it may go
    back into the UCR

    <joshlieberman> Time "usage" Req. 26 - BP, Req. 22 - OWLtime,
    Req. 24 - SSN, so it occurs all over.

    kerry: larsG's proposal does not prescribe where it goes to

    <LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to
    "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time
    in which data are valid (e.g.
    [12]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a
    requirement for OWL Time WP

      [12] http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid).

    <kerry> +1

    +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <frans> +1

    <KJanowicz> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1 to getting on...

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <ChrisLittle> 0

    <SimonCox> +1 is valid requirement

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    <eparsons> Resolved : rephrase the valid time requirement to
    "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time
    in which data are valid (e.g.
    [13]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a
    requirement for OWL Time WP

      [13] http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid).

    <frans> I will try to add a note to give the extra context

    <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to talk about Action-97 at
    end of UCR discussion

    eparsons: let's move on

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to talk on action-21

    kerry: did some work on ACTION 21
    ... looked at the old SSN use cases
    ... we may need to revisit them if there is something there
    which we missed

    <eparsons> Topic : BP Progress Follow Up

    <frans> I will look at the results of action-21 within the next
    couple of days.

    Linda: commit the group to some more actions, get feedback
    ... ACTION 94
    ... make links within a dataset discoverable

    <Linda> discoverable

    <Linda> [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/97

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/97

    BartvanLeeuwen: I was previously talking about a different
    issue, ACTION 97
    ... i wanted to show a demo
    ... probably by the end of the month

    Linda: ISSUE 96 on billroberts

    <BartvanLeeuwen> I was talking with about ACTION-85, which
    first has a UCR its connected to the product

    billroberts: related to section 7.2 in best practise
    ... will work on it this weekend

    Linda: ACTION 97 and 98, but the authors are not on the call

    <billroberts> so name of action 96 is a duplicate with action
    94, but I think action 96 was intended to related to the line
    of BP section 7.2 that says "it's useful to have hyperlinks to
    things like Geonames, wikipedia, OSM etc (see list on the
    mailiing list, keyword: stamp collecting)"

    Linda: engage the group with new task: 1) compile list of
    common formats in use in spatial data, 2) compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in RDF
    ... any volunteers?

    <frans> I found out it is not possible to define unassigned
    actions

    eparsons: for 1) geometries or more?

    <billroberts> I'll volunteer for (2) compile list of geospatial
    vocabs

    <KJanowicz> Does "compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in
    RDF" mean a list of vocabularies/ontologies on spatial data for
    RDF/Linked data applications?

    <frans> Yes, HTML could be a format for spatial data

    <KJanowicz> I would volunteer for 2

    eparsons: I volunteer for 1)

    <billroberts> happy to collaborate with KJanowicz on item 2 - I
    suppose action should be assigned to one of us but we can agree
    to coordinate

    <KJanowicz> @billroberts sounds good to me

    <eparsons> ACTION: KJanowicz & billroberts to create list of
    Spatial RDF vocabs [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and
    register nicknames at
    <[16]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users

    <Linda> [17]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

      [17] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

    <scribe> ACTION: eparsons to Compile a list of common formats
    in use in spatial data [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Compile a list of common
    formats in use in spatial data [on Ed Parsons - due
    2015-11-25].

    <scribe> ACTION: billroberts and KJanowicz to compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'billroberts'. You can review and
    register nicknames at
    <[20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users

    <scribe> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action04]

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and
    register nicknames at
    <[22]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

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

    <scribe> ACTION: billroberts to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action05]

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in rdf [on Bill Roberts - due 2015-11-25].

    <kerry> action; linda to create an email thread around
    introduction to best practice

    <KJanowicz> ahaller2: you may have to use full names

    <kerry> ACTION: linda to create an email thread around
    introduction to best practice [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Create an email thread around
    introduction to best practice [on Linda van den Brink - due
    2015-11-25].

    Linda: face to face meeting next week

    <joshlieberman> There will also be a briefing and discussion on
    SDWWG at the Sydney TC...

    Linda: Friday 26th of November, so it would be good if all
    actions are actioned by them and put in the document

    <KJanowicz> ahaller2 can you add me to action 101

    <KJanowicz> yes, I am following their work closely

    frans: in the Semantics conference in Vienna I presented the
    work in this group
    ... and GeoKnow was there

    <joshlieberman> OGC TC Geosemantics session will be 30
    November, 15:45 AEST. Accessible by GoToMeeting.

    <KJanowicz> to jens lehmann

    eparsons: warm up the editors that the SSN deliverables is
    starting in the next week
    ... we need to think about the F2F meeting in the new year

    <kerry> +q

    <scribe> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action07]

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and
    register nicknames at
    <[26]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users

    <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to ask about GeoKnow liason
    regarding BP ( again at the end of BP discussion )

    kerry: we planned to start working on Time, but the editors
    could not prepare yet for it
    ... four editors, kerry, ahalller2, KJanowicz and Danh Le Puoc

    s/puoc/phuoc

    <KJanowicz> the editors are for SSN

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye.

    <KJanowicz> bye bye

    <billroberts> thanks, bye

    <joshlieberman> bye

    eparsons: that finishes the meeting

    <ChrisLittl> bye

    <LarsG> thanks, bye

    <frans> thanks & bye

    bye

    <eparsons> thanks ahaller2 scribe to the satrs

    <scribe> ACTION: Krzysztof Janowicz to compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action08]

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Janowicz to compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in rdf [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due
    2015-11-25].

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: billroberts and KJanowicz to compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: billroberts to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: eparsons to Compile a list of common formats in
    use in spatial data [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: KJanowicz & billroberts to create list of Spatial
    RDF vocabs [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial
    vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Krzysztof Janowicz to compile a list of
    geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: linda to create an email thread around
    introduction to best practice [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action03
      [29] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action05
      [30] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action02
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action01
      [32] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action04
      [33] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action07
      [34] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action08
      [35] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action06

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 11:08:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:09 UTC