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

[Minutes] 2016-08-17

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:18:44 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c28654a9-a0d9-ef83-b0f1-39681dd9abd0@w3.org>
The minutes of today's busy meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes. Thanks to Bill for scribing. 
Text version below...


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

17 Aug 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160817

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           kerry, phila, ahaller2, frans, ScottSimmons, Linda,
           billroberts, MattPerry, ClausStadler

    Regrets
           Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, Andrea_Perego, AndreaP

    Chair
           kerry

    Scribe
           billroberts

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]approve minutes
             https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-sdw-minutes.html
          2. [6]Coverage update
          3. [7]Consolidating (merging) best practices, e.g. the
             ones on identifiers
          4. [8]Fix a date for document freeze prior to TPAC (F2F)
             vote
          5. [9]Editors of deliverables checking requirements in
             UCR (this thread)
          6. [10]Remaining outstanding issues and actions summary
          7. [11]how should geosparql be handled?
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      * [13]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <kerry> scribe: billroberts

    <kerry> scribenick: billroberts

approve minutes [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-sdw-minutes.html

      [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-sdw-minutes.html

    PROPOSED: approve minutes of last meeting

    <ahaller2> +1

    +1

    <Linda> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    RESOLUTION: approve minutes of last meeting

    <roba> +1

Coverage update

    <kerry> patent call:
    [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    <kerry> billroberts: work on coverage has focused on 2 strands

    <kerry> ...1 is covjson from u reading and a draft
    specification will be given more formal status.

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

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

    <kerry> ...i have run thru ucs and xref with covjson and
    wrriten some note (see above) and concluded a pretty good match

    <frans> Bill, did you use the latest editors draft of the UCR
    to cross-reference?

    <kerry> ... a missing bit has some ideas being developed now by
    jon and mail re fragment identifiers and "extracts" with
    metadata atttached

    <kerry> .... discussion at last meeting was whetherwe should
    make it a rec/standard or a not/discussion odc. Issue is
    resources.

    <kerry> .... esp implementations -- will be discussed with phil

    <kerry> ...did i use laterst ucr draft ? yes, but it might have
    moved since

    [17]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Beginnings_of_a_W3C_no
    te

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Beginnings_of_a_W3C_note

    <kerry> ....2 other strand is rdf datacube approach.... dmitry
    has put together beginnings of what could be a "note"

    <kerry> .... roba also doing early stage work on soemthing
    called qbfor st (space and time dimensions).

    <kerry> .... will see whther these should/could be combined to
    a note

    <kerry> .. might say how rdf db should be used

    <kerry> .... i will help too

    <kerry> ...objective to have reasonable drafts

    <kerry> ... by tpac meeting

    <kerry> phila: thanks for a lot of work here --- ok for 2 docs
    provinding different ways of doing a similar thing .... sounls
    like maybe both docs should be notes/discussion paper

    <kerry> .... may not be a formal standards ---a little
    premature... notes/discussion maybe over standard/recs

    <kerry> billroberts: happy with that -- sounds right to me too

    <kerry> linda: should there be something about cov in BP?

    <kerry> billroberts: yes, seems appropriate. we can put some
    work into this. already a relevant narrative there.

    <kerry> ....we could have a specific bp around this topic.

    <kerry> ....the new things are quite new so would they be "best
    practice"?

    <kerry> linda: could be just careful wording e.g "possible
    approach"

    <kerry> roba: plea for help and clarification -- how to take
    existing bp to definitions that can be reused...

    <kerry> ... i have action to write a note about general problem
    of metadata... general comment to review vocablaries and
    pointing to ogc vocabs where they should be held

    <kerry> ... are we lookjing at 2 different approaches ... they
    are not competing more of a bridge with link to josh's vocab
    work, to fit into best practice.

    <kerry> ... is there a middle glue -- but i need some help
    here.

    joshlieberman: has been following the coverages work with
    interest. There are several approaches, which have a lot in
    common: XML from OGC, RDF, JSON.
    ... these have a connection to existing models and definitions.
    Coverage is a Feature, elements within that are also
    potentially Features.
    ... subsets/slices/bounding areas are also Features. The
    different appraoches are essentially about how you define the
    index from those features to the corresponding range.
    ... the Best Practice could focus on those higher level
    concepts, plus practical aspects of how to represent those
    ... this would give the basis for converting between those
    approaches. Different ones have strenghts for different
    applications

    Frans: is wondering about how coverages relate to the spatial
    ontology work, partly answered by Josh's recent comment
    ... where will the concept of 'Coverage' be defined?

    joshlieberman: [sound lost for a few seconds] has discussed
    with Rob about defining key concepts of the coverage
    dimensions/index

    <frans> I lost Josh´s voice for a while

    joshlieberman: Coverage concept is well defined in existing OGC
    documents but we should summarise it in the BP for ease of
    access

    frans: will it be defined in an RDF ontology?

    joshlieberman: the Data Cube Note could include extensions to
    the ontology
    ... would like to write a charter for OGC to extend GeoSPARQL
    to reflect his current research work
    ... so thinking about what could go into the BP while a
    possibly long-running consideration of this takes place at OGC

Consolidating (merging) best practices, e.g. the ones on identifiers

    <frans> Josh, I would love to help with the spatial ontology
    but I am occupied with the UC&R now.

    Linda: hard at work on the BP. Jeremy working on the narrative,
    Linda working on restructuring the BP, Payam is working on CRS
    ... would like to talk about consolidating and merging of BPs
    ... have created a new section to hold a merged section around
    best practices for identifiers. Previously there were 5 or so

    <Linda> [18]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-identifiers

      [18] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-identifiers

    Linda: now only one BP in this section. The Possible Approach
    section includes 3 main points: reuse identifiers when you can;
    when none exist, create your own; provide stable identifiers
    for things that change over time

    <kerry> +1 to the merge

    <roba> +1

    <frans> Less is more!

    Linda: question for the working group - is this a good
    approach? There will be fewer best practices but each will be
    longer

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    Linda: please look at the document over the next few days and
    give feedback on this approach
    ... but seeing the good initial support, will carry on in this
    way for now

    <roba> i had a look - and its good to improive connection
    between the issues anyway - maybe some sort of decision tree
    emerges

    Linda: has already incorporated some comments from Simon

    <joshlieberman> Should identifiers be part of a system for the
    features of interest?

    joshlieberman: making identifiers part of a system, where the
    features are part of the system?
    ... for example corresponding to paths in a taxonomy

    Linda: no answer right now, will have to think about it

Fix a date for document freeze prior to TPAC (F2F) vote

    <roba> +1 for special case where a set of features provide a
    set of identifiers - highlights the separation of feature model
    as a data structure implementation and object identity :-)

    kerry: for rest of meeting, concentrate on remaining issues in
    the UCR doc
    ... Frans had asked what state are we aiming to get UCR in by
    TPAC. Can we get it to 'final call' status?

    phila: as it is a Note, there is no concept of a Final Call or
    final edition. It just becomes whatever you publish last.

    kerry: so should it be another Public Working Draft? and so
    does it need a vote

    phila: it's currently published as a Note, so the next version
    just becomes another version of that Note. There is no change
    in status associated with a new version

    <phila> [19]UCR

      [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20151217/

    frans: understood
    ... at some point we want a frozen version for soliciting
    public comments and for discussing at TPAC. So how long before
    TPAC should we freeze documents to allow that

    phila: no formal requirement, but something like a week before
    works well in practice
    ... are members of the group happy that they have had
    sufficient time to read it and prepare

    frans: is happy with freezing a week before TPAC
    ... do we want a public call for comments at that moment?
    ... so we should do that a week before TPAC too
    ... it would be nice to receive some public comments before
    TPAC so maybe seeking comments earlier would be better

    phila: notes only 5 weeks to TPAC

    kerry: let's freeze a week before TPAC and respond to any
    notable public comments that we receive

Editors of deliverables checking requirements in UCR (this thread)

    kerry: Frans would like to check the status of other
    deliverables and how they relate to UCR

    <kerry> the email thread is here:
    [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/
    0114.html

      [20] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0114.html

    Frans: has asked editors of other deliverables to see if they
    are aware of the latest UCR and any suggests for changes
    ... not many changes required. Their working requirements are
    well aligned with current status of UCR
    ... but hasn't heard yet from SSN group

    kerry: I brought this up at a SSN meeting but no significant
    response, so will bring it up again at the next SSN meeting in
    2 weeks and Kerry will look at it herself. So Frans can assume
    it's probably ok but notes the need to take a look

    frans: expects each deliverable to include an explanation of
    how it meets the requirements, or why it was not possible to
    meet them
    ... so important to have the links from requirements to
    deliverable

    kerry: good idea, but not sure it is feasible for SSN, at least
    not within 5 weeks

    frans: was thinking of a simple checklist or table of
    requirements and a 'yes' or 'no' whether it was met
    ... maybe it doesn't need to eb part of a formal deliverable,
    but just a record on the wiki to show that the deliverable was
    tested against hte requirements

    kerry: doing it on the wiki might be possible in that time
    ... but as Phil said, it only has to be final when the working
    group finishes, so could perhaps be revised later.

    phila: it's possible that another group could pick up aspects
    of the work. That's what happened with the Time ontology. Our
    group has extended something that was first produced as a Note
    10 yaers ago

    frans: at least we should make sure that all the requirements
    from the use case analysis are somehow addressed

    kerry: can agree to do that on the wiki

    frans: should the BP document have explicit links to UCR?

    kerry: yes, we have something on that in the 'evidence'
    sections that have links into the UCR doc

    <kerry> issue: ssn group needs to produce a wiki document that
    realtes to requirements met or not from UCR

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-73 - Ssn group needs to produce a wiki
    document that realtes to requirements met or not from ucr.
    Please complete additional details at
    <[21]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73/edit>.

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73/edit

    frans: that makes it easier to check whether any requirements
    have been overlooked, especially since some have been added
    recently
    ... ok not to meet requirements in some cases, but that should
    come with a note on why that requirement could not be met

    Linda: but we won't be sure whether all requirements are met
    until the end of the work on the other deliverables

    phila: that should probably go into the other deliverables - a
    list of requirements and whether/how they are met, so not in
    the UCR doc

Remaining outstanding issues and actions summary

    <frans> [22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

      [22] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

    <ScottSimmons> sorry - must leave a little early due to another
    meeting that requires brief travel.

    frans: Action 111 will be addressed in next SSN teleconference
    [23]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111
    ... there is a new requirement on coordinate transformations

      [23] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111

    <frans> [24]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31

      [24] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31

    <kerry> +1 on adding requirement for issue-70

    frans: issue 31 has been overlooked until recently
    ... Linda had remarked that this might be out of scope. Frans
    will create a new thread on the subject to seek opinions. Is it
    a spatial data question, or a more general data issue
    ... there are no red issues any more, so should be ready with
    next version in 2 weeks

    kerry: congratulates Frans

how should geosparql be handled?

    joshlieberman: the spatial ontology is not in a deliverable of
    this working group, but spatial data practices that refer to
    that ontology are in scope

    <frans> The spatial ontology is mentioned as a subdeliverable
    of the BP deliverable

    joshlieberman: the BP could refer to an OGC specification for
    that, but there is a mismatch in time, as a new OGC spec will
    take a long time
    ... so should there be another SDW document to describe that
    ontology

    frans: perhaps we can indicate in BP that there is a need for a
    spatial ontology and that the new ontology in development is a
    promising option for the future - assuming that the ontology in
    development has a landing page or similar that we can link to

    joshlieberman: yes it's currently at geosemweb.org

    <Linda> +1 to having a note/discussion paper and reference that
    in BP

    joshlieberman: a W3 note or OGC discussion paper reflect work
    at similar levels of maturity - not quite ready to become a
    standard

    kerry: would feel more comfortable if is referenced in the BP
    document, even if future work - just to avoid creating
    additional documents

    roba: wouldn't disagree. If we're looking for a way to
    reference spatial concepts, something like GeoSPARQL might be
    too complicated and not a good fit. So a need for an updated
    ontology is obvious

    <joshlieberman> [25]http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo goes to a ttl
    file right now.

      [25] http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo

    roba: am agnostic about where we document it, but we definitely
    need a practical solution to the problem, which could involve
    referring to the concepts from geosparql

    <joshlieberman> mature state would be a BP reference to a new
    GeoSPARQL version, but interim measures are the question.

    phila: remember the charter. Help people decide how to do
    stuff, and guide them. People will tend only to read the main
    thing and won't follow up all footnotes etc
    ... it's up to the group and editors to decide how best to do
    it

    kerry: do you want people to review what you have done more
    closely? Propose what such a note might look like so we could
    decide what goes into BP?

    joshlieberman: the ontology is available at the link above.
    I'll write a description of it to go with it

    phila: who controls geosemweb.org?

    joshlieberman: me

    phila: we'll need something more permanent if we want to refer
    to it normatively, eg in SSN or Time ontology, as they are RECs

    <joshlieberman> Proposal: reference GeoSPARQL in BP and
    indicate location of the draft update.

    joshlieberman: so it would be better to have it as an OGC
    discussion paper

    kerry: need to talk more about TPAC plans
    ... editors, please say how much time you want in the TPAC
    meeting, so can start putting together an agenda

    phila: early-bird registration runs out at end of month, so
    register quick

    <frans> Thanks, have a good day or night

    <joshlieberman> bye

    bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [26]approve minutes of last meeting

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 14:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:26 UTC