- 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>
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