[Minutes] 2015-10-14

Predictably enough, the minutes of today's meeting are at 
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes

And in text form below:

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

14 Oct 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           eparsons, kerry, Alejandro_Llaves, Payam, joshlieberman,
           frans, Linda, jtandy, LarsG, billroberts, ChrisLittle

    Regrets
           Bart van Leeuwen, Rachel Heaven, Jon Blower, Simon Cox,
           Stefan Lemme, PhilA

    Chair
           eparsons

    Scribe
           josh

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Approve Minutes
          2. [5]Patent Call -
             https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
          3. [6]Resolving remaining UCR issues
          4. [7]Best Practice update
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 14 October 2015

    <eparsons> Meeting: SDW WG Weekly

    <eparsons> Hey where is everyone ?

    <billroberts> mornign all, just trying to get my webex going

    <eparsons> OK Bill

    <kerry> mornig? oy yes. it *isI morning, by 5 minutes

    <billroberts> (morning/afternoon/evening as appropriate)

    <kerry> scribe: josh

    <kerry> scribenick: josh

    <kerry> scribenick: joshlieberman

Approve Minutes

    <eparsons> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/10/07-sdw-minutes.html

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/07-sdw-minutes.html

    <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes

    <jtandy> +0 (apologies - wasn't there)

    <eparsons> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <frans> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +0, not there

    <Linda> +1

    <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes

    <Payam> +1

Patent Call - [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

Resolving remaining UCR issues

    <frans> [11]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

    frans: remaining unresolved issues

    <kerry> +q

    frans: Issue 16 valid time requirement out of scope? Issue 15
    represent past, present, future not clear?

    kerry: what is the Valid time disagreement?

    frans: one view is that OWL-Time expresses time, not its
    relevance to spatial data.

    kerry: agreed, but should we cover those relationships
    additionally?

    frans: well, not technically in scope, since the scope covers
    OWL-TIme alone and that doesn't include validity predicates.

    billrobert: isn't this a generic data issues?

    <kerry> +1

    <frans>
    [12]http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-valid

      [12] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-valid

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about scoping

    josh: spatial data needs particular expressions of validity /
    relevance to the real world. That has to include time.

    chris: in general, the representation of time on the Web needs
    work as well, and this group or someone else needs to take this
    on.

    jeremy: validTime is conceived as just a property with range
    OWL-Time. Should create / adopt bits of vocabulary as needed
    such as this.

    eparsons: probably need to decide this sort of scope question
    sooner rather than later.

    <jtandy> (the SDW charter allows us to formalise practice as
    necessary - we could produce additonal Notes)

    <billrobe_> Ed: kerry is on the speaker queue

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    <jtandy> "spatial data needs temporal context" ... good point
    kerry

    kerry: agree with josh, chris, jeremy that spatial data needs
    temporal context. Shouldn't feel constrained by narrow
    interpretation of scope.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> I can write, then...

    billrobe_: clear this is important, not clear that anyone has
    done this for us, so reassured on scope.

    frans: Issue 15: trend towards not having this as a requirement

    <jtandy> past, present and future are valid statements only at
    a particular point in time ... we need relative statements;
    e.g. "before {now}" = past

    <frans>
    [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
    s.html#TemporalReferenceSystem

      [13] 
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalReferenceSystem

    frans: Issue 25: temporal reference "description should be
    referenceable online

    <jtandy> (my previous comment relating to Issue 15)

    could we change "description" to "definition"?

    <Alejandro_Llaves> IMO, with many of this issues related to UCR
    document we are trying to provide solutions. And this is not
    the point of the UCR document, nor the proper time to provide
    solutions to them, according to the group charter schedule.
    Best practice document and the corresponding Time deliverables,
    etc. would be the proper tool to discuss and propose solutions
    to the issues. I understood the UCR document as an exercise to
    extract requirements from UCs.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> We could discuss if reqs are well phrased,
    if they need more examples, etc. But it seems we are trying to
    solve them now.

    <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept "Temporal reference system
    requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25

    <frans> proposal: If a temporal reference is used, the
    definition of the temporal reference system (e.g. Unix date,
    Gregorian Calendar, Japanese Imperial Calendar, Carbon Date,
    Geological Date) should be referenceable online.

    <Linda> +1

    +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <billrobe_> +1

    <frans> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept "Temporal reference system
    requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25

    frans: Issue 28 - require default CRS, Issue 29 - require
    linking geometry to CRS

    kerry: maybe it will go away on its own?

    eparsons: never!

    jeremy: point to real practices and decide what to adopt,
    rather than making a hard requirement.

    <kerry> +q

    <jtandy> joshlieberman: there is widespread practice to assume
    WGS84

    <jtandy> ... mostly this works

    <jtandy> joshlieberman: if we accumulate enough evidence of the
    assumption about WGS84 being broken, then we can make a
    statement

    <jtandy> ... about people changing their practice

    josh: good approach to examine practice. Maybe we will develop
    a requirement if practice turns out to be broken.

    frans: people may be waiting for better "best practices".
    Continental drift may be catching up with us anyway.

    <Linda> +1

    <eparsons> +1 to chris

    chris: agree that evidence is needed. At some point, though, a
    CRS does need to be understood, whether its a defined default
    or not.

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about namespacing?

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    frans: remember that these are requirements, not yet solutions

    <kerry> +1 to jeremy

    jeremy: the base requirement is "where are things on the planet
    (or elsewhere)" Only 1% need to make CRS explicit, but what do
    we need to do for the 99%

    <Alejandro_Llaves> yay!

    <kerry> t+1 -- this is a solution but is so easy that it should
    not be too hard for anyone -- it is effectively a default while
    being explicit

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1 to Ed

    <kerry> +1 to frans solution

    frans: still good idea to have a wiki page for evidence and
    ideas.

    +1 to wiki page

Best Practice update

    <kerry> ACTION: Frans to start a wiki page on evidence for CRS
    being needed or not [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Start a wiki page on evidence
    for crs being needed or not [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-10-21].

    <eparsons> yay Linda !!!

    <Linda> thanks Jeremy

    jeremy: welcome on the editorial board to Linda

    <jtandy> [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Linked-data

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Linked-data

    <Payam> yes, we had a quick discussion on it

    Do you not have audio?

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to mention mapping use cases to
    themes

    <Payam> since the last meeting, there have been some new emails
    in the discussion thread and I will update the wiki

    kerry: Linda has done some of the mapping of issues to
    requirements. I did some for the sensors thread.

    <Linda> This is the link
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narrat
    ives

      [16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives

    <kerry>
    [17]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narrat
    ives#Mapping_Requirements_to_this_theme_.28Kerry.29

      [17] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#Mapping_Requirements_to_this_theme_.28Kerry.29

    <Linda> yes both

    <kerry> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    jeremy: clear that different levels of abstraction are
    involved. Are we interested in both evident levels?

    <eparsons> +1 the thing and its representation

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    +1

    <ChrisLittle> complex geometry

    jeremy: anything special about spatial data sets?

    frans: high chance that spatial data is "professional" with
    curators / maintainers, etc.

    joshlieberman: spatial data actually has different structure
    and granularity because it represents real world entities.

    frans: another specialty: special links between data entities.

    <eparsons> +1 for links

    jeremy: "links are 1st class citizens" - consensus here. But
    what does that mean for link-poor formats?

    <frans> I am afraid I did not understand the 3...2...1 question

    <kerry> +q but json-ld does do links, doesn't it?

    <eparsons> Josh : no best Practice yet..

    josh: a consistent practice was identified in TB-11 as a need,
    but would have to be synthesized from disparate practice.

    --for JSON

    chris: tools are part of the need for those link-poor formats.

    eparsons: out of time -- look forward to the 8 other issues
    next time.

    <frans> What a great cliffhanger. I can not wait for the next
    edition of the meeting.

    <billrobe_> :-) thanks everyone

    <LarsG> Thanks, bye

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    <Linda> bye!

    <Payam> thanks, bye

    <kerry> bye!

    bye thanks

    <eparsons> bye all _ thanks

    <ChrisLittle> bye

    <frans> bye!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Frans to start a wiki page on evidence for CRS
    being needed or not [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html#action01

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 18:15:59 UTC