- 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>
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