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

RE: agenda for SDW plenary meeting this week

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:00:55 +0000
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PS1PR06MB1740559D01190406D466E6FEA4060@PS1PR06MB1740.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Yes sure, Rob. Generally, agendas are set, or nearly set,  by Monday (aussie time) evening so that agenda times can be posted to the Group. This is not far away from the agenda as posted, so, time permitting, we should be able to sneak this in. I know Linda is coming – but she may be the sole BP editor to listen this week.

From: Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 2:07 PM
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: agenda for SDW plenary meeting this week

Hi Kerry,

there has been some positive feedback on mailing lists regarding establishing a BP that we can then re-use within more specific BPs, regarding a consistent pattern for describing the attributes of spatio-temporal values - UoM, CRS, precision etc,  and how to attach these to datasets, structures (e.g RDF-QB dimension definitions) and actual data values.  Needs to handle valid requirements for labels, URIs and formal models (including ontologies and micro-formats possibly) . Its too complex a thing for a beginner to address - but hopefully tractable for us to identify BP here and then use it consistently in examples at least.

IMHO Too many times in the BP we have had to resort to references dataset metadata as a "possible solution" and not be able to offer a more concrete example of how to encode such things in data. Its also cross-cutting across at least the Time, Josh's :spatial ontology" and coverage work - so i think its a plenary topic to at least put a marker on the plan for handling this.

Can we devote a short discussion slot to this - enough to maybe define it as an issue and assign an action to someone (me if necessary) to have a go drafting such a BP and finessing references - or someone else to make the case to reject it as unnecessary :-)


On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 11:59 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> wrote:
There seems to be sufficient interest – the meeting will go ahead as planned!

From: Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>]
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 11:02 PM

To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: agenda for SDW plenary meeting this week

Dear friends and colleagues,
The SDW meeting this week will be, as usual at 3 August 2016 13:00 GMT<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20160803T13&p1=1440&ah=1> (click for your local time).
We are expecting a low-ish  turnout due to all those northern-hemisphere slackers (from whom a tiny ray of weak sunshine is an excuse to down tools) so if you are planning to be there for the meeting then  a quick “+1” reply to this email will be helpful; else we may cancel due to lack of interest.

Main agenda

  1.  CRS -- who is our primary audience and what do they need? And then what about the rest of them?
  2.  Best Practices:

     *   progress and planning;
     *   consolidating (merging) best practices, e.g. the ones on identifiers;
     *   bumping into concrete.

More info, including how to dial in: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160803#Main_agenda

-Kerry & Ed
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 11:01:37 UTC

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