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

[Minutes] 2015-09-02

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:36:18 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55E70962.40101@w3.org>
As ever, the minutes of today's call are at 

A text version is provided below:

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

02 Sep 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-sdw-irc


           eparsons, kerry, Alejandro_Llaves, frans, Phil, jtandy,
           aharth, LarsG, MattPerry, AndreaPerego, Jon Blower

           Rachel_Heaven, Bart_van_Leeuwen, Simon_Cox,
           Stefan_Lemme, Antoine_Zimmermann, Rachel, Antoine, Bart,
           Simon, Bill, Simon, Stefan




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Approve Minutes
          2. [5]Patent Call
          3. [6]UCR Issue 15 Discussion
          4. [7]issue 15
          5. [8]Best Practice Progress to date
          6. [9]Cross - referencing homework
          7. [10]nottingham
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015

    <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group

    <trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015

    <LarsG> semi-apologies from me today, I'll have to leave in
    about 30 minutes...

    <jonblower> +present Jon Blower

    <joshlieberman> +present joshlieberman

Approve Minutes

    <ahaller2> +present ahaller2

    <eparsons> [12]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes.html

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes.html

    <frans> +1

    <jtandy> +0 (failing memory)

    <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes

    <phila> It looks as if I was there +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <jonblower> +0 (wasn't there!)

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +0 not present

    <ahaller2> +1

Patent Call

    <LarsG> +0 wasn't there

UCR Issue 15 Discussion

    <eparsons> [13]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15

    <jonblower> thanks for the welcomes all!

    <eparsons> scribe: Kerry

    <scribe> scribe: kerry

    <scribe> scribenick: kerry

    <AndreaPerego> About the meeting minutes, I guess the correct
    link is [14]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes.html (Aug,

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes.html

issue 15

    frans: after email discussion, is proposal for new requirement

    <frans> Proposal for new requirement "It should be possible to
    declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future
    with respect to another web resource"

    note this email too:


    <ahaller2> s/reuquirement/requirement

    <jtandy> This makes sense ... wrt temporal referencing, this
    supports Allen Calculus type stuff

    frans: will be possible to indetify predictions from real time

    <joshlieberman> Does this include or leave out real world
    features that a Web resource may represent?

    phila: are we talking about versions?

    frans: its about owl-time -- a temporal requirement not spatail
    ... about a future event or an old document in the past

    phila: notes it will cause controversy.

    <AndreaPerego> s/fuure/future/

    jeremy: this is a subset of the allen calculus
    ... equiv to spatial reasoning

    <phila> That helps, thank you, Jeremy

    <ChrisLittle> yes

    jeremy ... should go on the full range of allen calculus

    <frans> allen calculus:

      [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_interval_algebra

    jon: clarify if about relationship between time doc is
    published and when it is about (that moves into the past). like
    valid time and observation time

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    frans: can be used for any web resource

    Jon: have to worry about what the time refers to

    <phila> foaf:primaryTopic Jon?

    <jonblower> phila; looks sensible, is there a dct: term too?

    chris: we did dicuss all this in the email. this issue in data
    on the web is not really explicit
    ... is buried in versioning, etc

    ed: is it more of a data issue or a spatial issue?

    josh: an important requirement but only a part of it. we need
    realtionship between resources
    ... and between a web resource and its real world concept
    ... am happy with former but not latter


    frans: wonders whether its already there in owl time

    <ahaller2> s/alreadt/already

    josh: owl-time does not say anything about the temporal
    relation between real world resource and the web resource


      [17] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/14

    alejandro: is happy with the wording of the requirement. could
    be extended to say there is a need for ...?

    <Alejandro_Llaves> In the meeting of 2015-08-12 (see
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes) this issue was
    resolved, with the decision to add a new requirement for the
    OWL Time deliverable: "OWL Time should be updated to align with
    the 2012 update of OWL datatypes and 2012 update of xsd
    datatypes" Temporal reasoning and relations are already in OWL
    Time, so there is no reason for such a requirement.

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes)

    alejandro: issue 14 has some relation to this about temporal
    reasoning relations.
    ... so is this current issue already covered in owl-time?

    Frans: yes do we need this requirement?

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note our discussion from two
    weeks ago about interaction with DWBP group

    jeremy: irrespectively, we have a requirement we can keep

    <jtandy> [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes

    jeremy: about whther spatial or not want to talk with DWBP
    working group -- see those minutes
    ... we propose that if it is not in the DWWG and it is
    important we can hand over to them.

    Ed agrees

    <joshlieberman> +1 even if something is not explicitly spatial,
    it may be needed for our work and not a priority for Data on
    the Web

    <frans> "It should be possible to declare that a web resource
    is in the past, present or future with respect to another web



    <ChrisLittle> kerry draws attention to this email, all those
    different types of times (valid, transaction, etc) not in Allen



    <phila> [22]Allen's Interval Algebra

      [22] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~alspaugh/cls/shr/allen.html

    frans: owl-time does not say anything about how those
    statements might be used

    <Alejandro_Llaves> To me, Antoine's req. is more about the need
    to model predictions, and specify they are different to things
    happening in the future.

    <joshlieberman> Can we consider that Allen calculus / OWL-time
    is adequate as long as we can define and represent in Web
    resources events such as predictions?

    ed: how we solve it is not important

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    <LarsG> I have to leave now, sorry

    <frans> +q

    chris: the requirement we have is not covered by DWBP which
    only does versioning etc

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that the BP doc includes a
    need to express spatial _and_ temporal information

    chris: eg replacing data by some from a differnt source... is a
    real requirement

    jeremy: lots of requirements for spatail and teporal

    allejandro: antoine's is not covered by issue-15 which covers
    historians saying that some even happened in the future wrt
    some other eventt.
    ... antoine's is about tagging something as a prediction that
    is differnet.
    ... if we put i n the issue-15 requirement we ... we need
    temporal relations between web resources in the use cases that
    drove this.

    frans: thanks for discussion -- needs a bit more research now.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say Agreed, DWBP are talking about
    versioning (of datasets), not temporal relationships

    ACTION to Frans to work on issue-15

    <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register
    nicknames at <[23]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

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

    Phila: keep on this. Do not rely on DWBP


      [24] http://data.gov.uk/library/designing-uri-sets-for-location

    <phila> ACTION: knibbe to work on Issue-15 [recorded in

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Work on issue-15 [on Frans
    Knibbe - due 2015-09-09].

    Andrea: some more examples would help -- we have some from the
    UK -- denoting spatial objects at a given point in time. How do
    we do this in the data?
    ... is this too theoretical? we need to see how people address
    this in practice.

Best Practice Progress to date

    jeremy: set some homework -- some has been done but not all


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

    jeremy: could go thru that cross referencing or could do out of

    jeremy... consolidated those 50+ use cases to 7 common themes

    scribe: e.g. linkin things to each other, publishing with clear
    semantics, exposing datasets thru apis,
    ... enabling discovery, assignment of identifiers, expressing
    geospatial and temporal information
    ... sensor data, and also other stuff that could be stuffed in
    ... yet to allocate requirements to these themes
    ... why are we doing this? if DWBP is already doing it we
    should not do it again
    ... also the web architecture doc -- we need to support that
    2004 architecture.

    <ChrisLittle> see [27]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

      [27] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

    scribe: dont use the web as a glorified usb stick

    <phila> I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I offer the
    excuse of it being August and having a family. Now that August
    is temporally past, I will endeavour to complete Action-61

    jon: thks for intro
    ... is 50 use case doc still live?

    phil: one was added today

    Alejandro: ok to add still if frans ok too

Cross - referencing homework

    <frans> Current use cases and requirements doc:

      [28] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    jon cloning, changing and adding pull request

    <Alejandro_Llaves> grazie, Andrea! ;)

    kerry: found surprising little relevant advice from DWBP

    jeremy: yep, we need to create that

    publishing clear semantics



    <cperey> thanks!

    <cperey> yes

    <cperey> +1



    jeremy: exposing datasets thu apis

    ed: only 30% thru, yet to complete, finish this time next week



    Jeremy: enabling discovery
    ... see minutes from 2 weeks ago. Linda has written it up here.



    phil on identifiers...

    scribe: had a lot of email about url or uri or iri -- this is a
    big issue

    phila, promises to deliver



    andrea: drafted some preliminary requirements for best practice
    from barcelo meeting
    ... included pointer s to ddwbp. will update the wiki with



    jeremy: expressing geospatial and temporal info, chris?

    chris: am on it, but not written up yet. There are some such as
    descriptve metadata, standard formats etc.
    ... very little overlap
    ... if you are going to have some descriptive metadata beware
    of xxxx

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about DWBP in general,
    expectations, audiences etc.

    chris: will do before next week

    phil: dwbp is very different to this group, with a different
    brief. they are writing the basic so that it is there

    phila: will propose to them that they change their name to keep
    separate from discussion about hypermedia for example. the
    topic is too vast. expect them to do the basics.

    jeremy: when chris said spatial metadata i thought of
    geodcat-ap. Should also be cross-referened here.

    Andrea: yes, we have temproal and spatial reference system open
    issues too. thinking of dublin core but might not be good
    ... we have problem specifying spatial coverage and how to
    represent geometry. Many overlaps with this group that have
    been documented.
    ... will be revised for final version september or october. We
    could consider this is a possible candidate to reference from
    our bp.

    jeremy: could be "here is a body of work that we think is good"
    in our doc





    <cperey> bye bye everyone!

    etopic: nottingham


    ed: f2f for 2 hours,

    <AndreaPerego> Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be in

    <jtandy> +1

    phil meeting to start one hour earlier

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye!

    ed: we can do gotmeeting and webex for this meeting? probably

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    <eparsons> bye

    <ahaller2> bye

    <frans> bye!

    meeting closed 11:59 pm

    <jonblower> bye all! (Andrea, phila, see you in Brussels next

    <ChrisLittle> bye

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <MattPerry> bye

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 14:36:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:18 UTC