W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > April 2016

[Minutes] 2016-04-27

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:09:27 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5720C817.6070507@w3.org>
Today's minutes are at https://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes#res02 
with a text summary below. We decided to add two more deliverables:

- A Primer for SSN (a W3C Note/OGC Discussion paper) that will include 
examples using DUL.

- A new document covering the issue of an agreed spatial ontology. Josh 
and Frans kindly agreed to work on this but the WG recognises that more 
help will be needed.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

27 Apr 2016


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160427

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-irc


           eparsons, phila, ahaller2, jtandy, joshlieberman,
           ScottSimmons, billroberts, kerry, frans, AndreaPerego

           ChrisL, Lars, Rachel


           jtandy, phila


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]A Spatial Ontology
          2. [6]Virtual F2F
          3. [7]back to Spatial Ontology
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions

    <phila> trackbot, start meeting

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

    <trackbot> Date: 27 April 2016

    <phila> scribe: jtandy

    <phila> scribeNick: jtandy

    <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes


    <eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

    <AndreaPerego> +1


    <eparsons> [10]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-sdw-minutes.html

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-sdw-minutes.html

    <phila> PROPOSED: Approve previous plenary meeting's minutes

    <phila> +1

    <frans> +!

    <frans> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <eparsons> RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

    <billroberts> +1

    <joshlieberman> +!

    <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

    <eparsons> [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    eparsons: calls us pedants!
    ... main business now ...

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +present RaulGarciaCastro

    eparsons: how to best make use of this plenary call? what are
    you ideas?

    <eparsons> Topic : SSN A primer

    eparsons: sets up kerry to talk about the SSN primer

    kerry: happy to describe- sadly not so many SSN folks in

    <kerry> We passed a RESOLUTION - that DUL alignment becomes a
    note or some other product outside the recommendation

    kerry: we made this resolution in _their_ meeting
    ... see above
    ... we wanted to publish [things that complement] the core SSN
    spec - but separate
    ... phila suggested a Note, ScottSimmons suggested a few
    options including
    ... the DUL bit could be published as an extension (no thanks!)
    or a best practice / discussion paper
    ... phila later suggested Primer instead of a Note
    ... primer seems best; a tutorial

    <phila> phila: q+ to say that Primers are Notes - we only have
    Recs and Notes in terms if docs

    kerry: DUL won't be the _only_ example of 'extra bits and
    pieces' required to use the core SSN spec
    ... this issue is also likely to hit us with the Time

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that Primers are Notes - we
    only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs

    kerry: ontology publication (REC track) will be fairly dry - we
    put the interesting and complementary information in the Primer

    phila: we only have Notes and Recs ... the Primer could be
    either Note or Primer ... suggests that we have the SSN Primer
    as a Note

    ScottSimmons: asks what we want from this doc
    ... best practice is a formal endorsement of the OGC community,
    discussion paper is just "useful"

    kerry: sounds like a discussion paper to me; full of examples

    phila: agrees - a REC is formally endorsed, a Note is not ...
    more like a discussion paper then

    eparsons: what's the publication process in each case?

    phila: WG agree to publish a Note

    ScottSimmons: recommendation from WG for 8-day vote from TC

    <Zakim> RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that if we don’t
    recommend DUL, I would not put it in a primer; people could
    choose to align to others

    RaulGarciaCastro: I don't have a clear notion of the semantics
    of "primer" - but if DUL is outside the core spec, then does
    this really fit in the Primer?
    ... people could use something other than DUL ...

    kerry: we're not saying that DUL is the only alignment you
    could use
    ... the alignment to DUL is proposed as an _example_ ... others
    are possible
    ... but we won't develop that
    ... the DUL alignment is just an example [of how to use SSN] -
    we're not saying that you must (or should) use DUL

    eparsons: we all need to review the primer anyway, so we have a
    chance to comment on the content
    ... summarises ... Primer it is then - as a W3C Note and OGC
    Discussion paper

    kerry: requests a vote

    eparsons: are there other deliverables where this approach
    makes sense? e.g. where you need to complement a dry spec
    ... what are other people's thoughts

    <phila> jtandy: Where you have a dry spec that doesn't work
    well with lots of embedded examples, stick the examples in
    something else - that makes sense to me

    kerry: we're not setting a policy here- just a recommendation
    for Time ...
    ... can we have a resolution that SSN team deliver a REC and a
    complementary Note?

    <phila> PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec
    for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL

    kerry: notes that the SSN REC-track FPWD is coming soon!

    <phila> PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec
    for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The
    latter will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note


    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    RESOLUTION: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN
    plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter
    will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note

    <frans> +1

    eparsons: looks good ... sold to the lady in Australia

A Spatial Ontology

    eparsons: "the spatial ontology to rule them all" ... we _do_
    need to address this

    frans: this topic could be at the core of our mission to
    [clarify] the spatial data standards landscape
    ... there are no clear solutions at the moment
    ... there are interoperability issues with all the options
    ... implementers are still at a loss to see which option they
    should support
    ... the world is waiting to be told
    ... there are many ways to approach the spatial ontology


      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/An_agreed_spatial_ontology

    frans: I made this wiki page to collect thoughts around this
    ... my personal thought is that the spatial ontology should, at
    least, define geometry as a core concept
    ... at a fundamental everyone agrees what a geometry is
    ... we probably have lots of standards because [they have
    evolved from] different perspectives
    ... perhaps we need to base our standard on the underpinning
    [mathematical] theory - rather than a particular domain view

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask 4 questions

    <phila> Do we think there is already a clear preferred spatial

    <phila> If so, is there consensus on endorsing it?

    <phila> If not, is there one that is within our power to amend?

    <phila> If not, can we present the pros and cons of each and
    leave it up to implementers?

    frans: so lets start by collecting our thoughts

    phila: question 1- do we already think there is already a
    preferred spatial ontology? if there is, we should just say
    that (assuming the group can agree)
    ... question 2- if there is one that _almost_ works, can we
    amend that?
    ... question 3- failing that, can we identify when and where
    each option should be used?

    frans: we can see a preference for ontologies- but the
    preference depends on domain
    ... for example, spatial folks like GeoSPARQL
    ... but this doesn't address all the needs
    ... we could start by trying to evolve GeoSPARQL
    ... perhaps we could start with GeoSPARQL
    ... and try to make it usable for everyone

    eparsons: so - GeoSPARQL seems like a good starting point

    <phila> scribe: phila

    eparsons: Is this the right level of abstraction?
    ... Does everyone care about points lines and polygons,
    abstract spatial features etc.
    ... We might be better off taking about roads, rivers etc.

    frans: Should the spatial ontology be about spatial things or
    about geometry?


      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-ont-20071023/

    frans: If I look at the practical problems - it has to do with
    expressing geometry (with CRSs in the background)
    ... No practical probs in what a spatial thing is
    ... There are already systems in place for classifying

    scribe jtandy

    <jtandy> joshlieberman: I have some comments

    <scribe> scribe: jtandy

    UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: geometry is important
    ... we don't need to establish a theoretical validation for
    geometry - there's lots of existing work
    ... we don't need an ontology for geometry- geometry is for

    <billroberts> joshlieberman said 'geometry is for computation'

    joshlieberman: after 13 years, we still have people saying
    "lets just use W3C basic Geo"
    ... this work was incorporated and extended by the W3C Geo
    Ontologies IG (XGR-geo-ont-20071023)
    ... this work is the precursor of GeoSPARQL - which is based on
    ... but there's very little traction in the web community
    ... if we can figure out why there is a lack of traction then
    this would be a good start

    frans: agrees. the lack of traction could be that it is (i)
    unknown, or (ii) doesn't meet all the requirements
    ... notes that GeoSPARQL doesn't actually identify the geometry
    ... this is [impenetrable] for people wanting to transform
    between different encodings

    joshlieberman: the definitions are incorporated into ISO
    standards, which are only available for a fee!
    ... this is an ongoing issue for OGC
    ... (not good for ScottSimmons blood pressure)
    ... we want to make these standards web accessible

    <ScottSimmons> (gotta run and up my meds after that comment)

    joshlieberman: there's a difference to starting from scratch;
    we want to make [the existing work] web accessible
    ... we can start from the OWL ontologies that are being derived
    from the UML models in ISO 19107
    ... this was Simon Cox's suggestion
    ... perhaps we can develop a web accessible standard based on
    ISO 19107 and ISO 19109

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about developers

    joshlieberman: I don't really care if this upsets ISO - but the
    issue with ISO is about intellectual property of the text- not
    the data models

    <phila> [14]Vladimir Agafonkin's story of creating Leaflet.

      [14] https://youtu.be/NLbyHffKQuU

    ScottSimmons: agrees ... but this would take time

    phila: a barrier to adoption [of GeoSPARQL] is that it has the
    word "SPARQL" in it
    ... also, ref experience from developer of leaflet. In general,
    developers are astounded that you need more than a lat-lon ...
    surely Google maps [does the heavy lifting]
    ... you're not going to get a Web developer to write a SPARQL

    frans: GeoSPARQL has good points
    ... such as the geometry definitions
    ... it's modular
    ... if we take the route to open up ISO 19107 and ISO 19109
    ... can we modularise [GeoSPARQL] to include / refer to these

    joshlieberman: its a pity that Mathew Perry isn't here; he
    developed the properties
    ... required to query against (?) geometries
    ... this was an add on; didn't realise that this needed to be
    done until after we'd started
    ... modularising GeoSPARQL [is a good idea]
    ... we do need to recognise that many developers won't want to
    do all the complex stuff
    ... so we need to map their simple world onto GeoSPARQL
    ... specifically, we need to include GeoJSON

    <kerry> What formalizations of the non-geometric property
    literals, such as <relationshiptag> are needed to fully satisfy
    the group's use cases and others like them?

    kerry: I liked where joshlieberman was going with that- sounds
    ... copies a sentence from the report that joshlieberman refers
    ... discussing geospatial relationships and the venacular (e.g.
    "next door to")
    ... perhaps this could be added to the ontology

    eparsons: back to frans

    <joshlieberman> Yes, the point of the incubator report was that
    there are several ontologies relevant to spatial data.

    frans: extensibility is another key requirement
    ... GeoSPARQL already supports this

    <Zakim> billroberts, you wanted to talk about the most
    important aspects of geometry from a dev point of view

    frans: if we take GeoSPARQL as a starting point can we using
    this to bridge the gap between spatial and normal data

    <joshlieberman> Could you define what that gap is? Arguably
    it's a question of coordinate system

    eparsons: intervenes to get back to queue

    billroberts: we quite like a SPARQL query- but mostly, we want
    to get hold a chunk of geometry
    ... e.g. the boundary of my town
    ... in GeoJSON so that I can work with it - to draw it on a
    map, put in elastic search etc.

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to talk about practical
    requirements for (a) Web developers & (b) LD guys

    billroberts: simply getting the geometries [as objects] would
    solve 95% of my problems

    AndreaPerego: refers to previous work
    ... most web developers just want to get the geometries -
    ... in which ever format suits them
    ... in the appropriate CRS
    ... at the right level of complexity
    ... the main issue is how to fill in the gaps
    ... GeoSPARQL has lots of stuff- but doesn't say how to do a
    bounding box
    ... looking from a practical point of view, I am concerned
    about the ability of the WG to cope with this issue in the time
    we have
    ... should we not try to help reuse what is already available?

    eparsons: good point- we need to consider this

    <AndreaPerego> About gaps:





      [17] https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/LOCN_extension:_Metadata

    eparsons: how do we go forward? Presumably, this is another
    deliverable beyond the BP work? Jeremy and Linda to comment

    joshlieberman: W3C and OGC can work together to deliver this

    <frans> Yes, we need as many people on the case as possible

    joshlieberman: timing is an issue; we could get this going in
    June TC

    <phila> scribe: phila

Virtual F2F


      [18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016

    jtandy: For thos interested - on Tuesday next, European
    afternoon, 11:00 UTC onwards, we're going to try and work
    through outstanding issues
    ... make big progress. I've turned the narrative into chunks
    that have tangible examples in them.
    ... See if they make them constraints, underpinning issues etc.
    ... I suggest we keep the spatial ontology thread separate from
    that discussion

back to Spatial Ontology

    eparsons: If we do it as a separate deliverable, we need
    people. I suggest Frans and Josh?

    joshlieberman: I can put some time into that

    <frans> Yes, but we need a larger group

    eparsons: I agree we need a larger group

    jtandy: I think tis is an issue that we might be able to get
    extra support from the office on.

    joshlieberman: I point out that we have time on the Thursday in
    the TC for this. 08:00 Dublin time

    eparsons: Out of time guys. Please continue on e-mail.
    ... So we have a new deliverable.
    ... We'll talk again in 2 weeks.

    #/me no

    kerry: Two new deliverables tis meeting

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

    <frans> Thanks, bye

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <RaulGarciaCastro> Bye

    <billroberts> thanks bye

    <eparsons> thank all - bye

    <kerry> bye!

    <jtandy> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [19]Last week's minutes
     2. [20]That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus
        a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter
        will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 14:09:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:18 UTC