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

[Minutes-COV] 2016-08-24

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:52:04 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1bf9f73e-6c52-804d-65bc-0a1589b8652b@w3.org>
The minutes of the Coverages sub group call just ended are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwcov-minutes with a text snapshot below.


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                      SDW Coverages Sub Group telco

24 Aug 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwcov-irc


           roba, billroberts, Duo, ScottSimmons, phila, ChrisLittle





      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]What will we discuss at TPAC
          2. [5]Metadata separation
          3. [6]AOB?
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

    <billroberts> [9]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/10-sdwcov-minutes

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/10-sdwcov-minutes

    PROPOSED: Accept last meeting's minutes

    <billroberts> +1

    +0 (not present)

    <roba> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept last meeting's minutes


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



    billroberts: Not expecting Jon and Maik to be at TPAC but
    likely to participate by remote
    ... By the end of the meeting, we shoujld have reasonably
    complete drafts of our key outputs
    ... Expected to be a Note/Discussion Doc on Coverage JSoN and
    on the use of RDF QB in represetning Coverages
    ... That might change but it seems right
    ... So before the meeting we should have reasonably complete
    drafts to talk about
    ... So does the work that ANU has been doing make sense as a
    separate doc?
    ... 'complete' means that issues are recognised, noit that the
    doc is complete
    ... So we could hopefully then have FPWD staight after TPAC
    ... So my first question is... is the current wiki page for
    attending TPAC up to date?


      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F4

    billroberts: That's the current list
    ... So no one on the call other than Phil and I will be there
    ... If not attending in person, can people join remotely?

    phila: Note that Lisbon time is the same as UK where it is
    currently 14:11
    ... (and 31 degrees)

    chrisL: I'll be travelling to Helsinki that day

    Duo: The ANU team will probably be in class

    billroberts: It depends on the scheduling I guess
    ... So Kerry suggested Monday afternoon, 14:00 - 17:00 local

    phila: Can we shift it to a time that willwork for ANU?

    billroberts: So if Sam and Duo can check your schedules please
    for 19/20 Sept

    ScottSimmons: That Monday is also the opening plenary of the TC
    where Jon Blower is presenting at, I think 15:30 Lisbon time

    billroberts: So more reason to move Coverages away from Monday

    ScottSimmons: Our coverages grpoups at OGC don't meet until
    Thursday 22nd

    billroberts: So I'll go back to Kerry on the scheduling

What will we discuss at TPAC

    billroberts: On the CoverageJson stuff, we need input from its
    authors of course.
    ... One thing ...with the CoverageJson, they havea some well
    developed docs
    ... in terms of spec and tutorial material
    ... what makes a sensible contact of a NOTE?
    ... A Primer? Explanation of how to start

    phila: Rambles on about ideal (spec, primer and test suite) and
    what Jon and Maik have time and inclination to do.
    ... Being published by W3C and OGC carries some weight so it
    needs to be right

    ScottSimmons: +1 from OGC

    billroberts: Whether it's one or multiple docs seems achievable
    to me
    ... Sounds like I need to talk to Jon and Mail about what they
    can realistically do
    ... Having looked at the UCR, I think the CoverageJson spec
    needs more on identifiers. There's some stuff in the GH repo
    about that
    ... I'll see if Jon is able to put a bit of prep into that.
    ... The otehr part of what we need to cover at the meeting is
    the Note/DP about QB work
    ... That's where the people on the call now are more involved.

    Duo: Sam and Dimitri might have more to say

    billroberts: It would be great if you can start filling that
    wiki page out, taking us from initial ideas to something closer
    to a doc. All text doesn't need to be finished but we need to
    know what the doc willlook like and what the open issues are.

    roba: I put out a strawman as requested with ideas about what a
    set of baseline dimensions and measures mighjt need to look
    ... Had a quick discussion with DImitri and Sam but yet to ghet
    any detailed feedback
    ... I can take that work a bit further forward. I'm concerned
    that it needs more eyeballs

    <billroberts> Rob's note:

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/RDF_Datacube_for_Coverages

    roba: I've just been reviewing the UCR from the SSN
    perspective, looking at where sensors were producing coverages
    and I do feel that the current set of deliverables necessarily
    address a lot of the requiremsnts in terms of descriptive
    ... which QB is better at
    ... One thing I did put in the review - capturing CRS and UoM,
    precision and accuaracy - and they're common to things other
    than coverages
    ... So it's up the WG to see which requirements we're going to
    ... I don't want to suggest I can do it all by myself without
    at least feedback.

    billroberts: I trhink that is useful work and I'd like to see
    it as part of our outputs

    ChrisLittle: Can I encourage Rob - it's on my list of things to
    do now I'm back from holiday.

    roba: So if people are rebooting - look at the UC review
    ... Lots of cross refs missing for SSN but the coverages stuff
    seems in reasonable shape but feedback would be very welcome.
    ... Always happy to see a plan B from elsewhere

    billroberts: We should be able to bring together enough people
    to get the experience and perspective. SSN has similar issues
    ... I'm pretty familiar with QB for stats

    roba: That sounds encouraging so I'm happy to do what I can to
    pull things together and keep this to a small scope.
    ... My feeling is that it's likely to be a separate Note or an
    extension to anotehr doc

    billroberts: OK, so there's an objective to head for the 19 of

    roba: Always happy to have extra sessions with screen sharing

    <ChrisLittle> As long as discussions appear on public channel

    billroberts: People can easily work on stuff outside the

    roba: I'll leave it to Bill and Chris to sort that out then
    ... obviously the ANU time zone is easier.

    billroberts: So I'll pull the relevant parts together so we
    know what to talk about at TPAC

Metadata separation

    billroberts: You, Rob, thought that some of our discussions
    were tending towards merging data and metadata - you were going
    to review the UCs in this regard?

    roba: I think it is covered. I recommended some fairly vague
    wording is made a bit stronger and more testable
    ... the user needs to be able to determine what the CRS is,
    ... There are some explicit notes in my review on this.
    ... Given a piece of data, it should be possible to find the
    metadata, for example
    ... I guess this is why I'm recommending people start with that

    billroberts: Is that review on the mailing list?

    roba: I sent it this morning nad it bounced
    ... So I sent it again



    172.html Rob's UC review


    roba: I think this maybe comes back to what we, as a broader
    WG, need to do in terms of providing some testability around
    what we're suggesting. Hand waving about what you ought to do
    really needs to be better

    billroberts: It's a tricky one. In some cases, those reqs have
    been written to be implementation-neutral. Some times we've
    been trying to worry about spaecially spatial etc.
    ... DWBP talks about metadata and prov - maybe we don't want to
    be too specific in SDW
    ... Not sure what the thinking was around that...

    roba: I think people in the specific subgroups need to be clear
    how people can meaningfully test that requirements have been

    billroberts: On scheduling - I'm on leave from the end of this
    week for 2 weeks.
    ... So I'll try and get a few things done between now and then.
    ... After I'm back, I have little time before we head for
    ... So a practical question - do we want a call in 2 weeks
    without me?
    ... I can get in touch with Kerry and see if she can coordinate
    and chair that one.
    ... It's only 3.5 weeks to Lisbon so I'd like to keep things
    ... I dare say Kerry will take that on if she can.

    roba: I have a lot on my plate ahead of the TC

    billroberts: So we have lots of open questions...


    roba: Maybe a more general question... what is the status of
    the extension of the WG timeline?

    phila: Talks a bit about June 2017

    billroberts: OK, then thanks everyone, we'll stop there.

    <ChrisLittle> Bye and good holiday Bill

    <billroberts> bye all

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [16]Accept last meeting's minutes

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 13:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:25 UTC