- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:23:57 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's BP call are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.
SDW WG, BP Sub Group telco
24 Aug 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
Linda, ScottSimmons, ByronCinNZ, jtandy, joshlieberman,
billroberts, MattPerry, ClausStadler, ChrisLittle
Regrets
phila
Chair
jtandy
Scribe
billroberts
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]BP document status (quick update & request for
feedback)
2. [5]Review 'orphan' Best Practices in §11 "Other best
practices"
* [6]Summary of Action Items
* [7]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<jtandy>
[8]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon2016
0824
[8] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160824
<scribe> scribe:billroberts
<scribe> scribenick:billroberts
<joshlieberman> Have to leave in 15 min, regretfully.
<jtandy> [9]https://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-sdwbp-minutes
[9] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-sdwbp-minutes
PROPOSAL: approve minutes of last meeting
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> +1
<MattPerry> +1
0 - not there
<ScottSimmons> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<roba> +1
roba: notes that he was at the last meeting, but not listed in
the 'Present' list.
<ClausStadler_> +0 (wasn't there)
Jeremy will ask Phil to update
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<jtandy> Patent Call
<jtandy> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
(no patent issues raised)
BP document status (quick update & request for feedback)
Linda: we've been restructuring the BP document, especially the
BP section itself
... I've gone through all of Chapter 10
<jtandy> Here's the latest editor's draft ...
[11]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[11] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
Linda: have aligned with Data on the Web BP document where
possible
... and merged best practices where possible, notably in the
identifier section and the linking data section
... but there are still open issues and many BPs lacking
examples (though those examples will generally come from the
Narrative)
<jtandy> Linking spatial data:
[12]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-linking
[12] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-linking
Linda: Could everyone please look at the section 'Linking
Spatial Data' and let me know if you agree with it, whether you
think it makes sense. Please review
... and there are threads on the mailing list about various
aspects of the BPs. Please continue to contribute to those as
much as you can
Jeremy: I started an email thread on CRS a few weeks ago. Payam
is compiling responses to that and might lead to a new BP
... there is currently a note sitting between BP1 and BP2 with
info on CRSs
<jtandy> [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#narrative
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#narrative
Jeremy: the narrative with its rich examples around the
flooding scenarios is currently in Chapter 12
... progress slow on adding to that. We have a reasonable story
but I need to explain what each actor in the narrative is doing
... notes that Bill is working on something for the narrative
billroberts: will try to finish his section of the narrative by
end of this week
jtandy: we'll have to find a balance of level of detail
... what else is everyone expecting regarding the narrative?
... silence...
... in that case I assume everyone is happy with the direction.
Thanks to Linda
Review 'orphan' Best Practices in §11 "Other best practices"
<jtandy> [14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-notaligned
[14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-notaligned
jtandy: what should we do with these ?
Linda: these are specific BPs, most of them related to
observation or sensor data, which were difficult to align with
the Data on the Web approach. So they're in Chapter 11 because
of that
... they don't fit in the new structure. Do we still need them?
can they be merged with another BP?
jtandy: comments?
roba: just before hte meeting I posted a review of the UCR
document from the perspective of the SSN group
... and some of these BPs are covered to some extent in that
review, which could help clarify the requirements relating to
these BPs
Rob's review:
[15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/
0172.html
[15]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0172.html
jtandy: it may have been premature to include some of those
issues in the BP doc. Will they be covered sufficiently in the
SSN group?
roba: it's not up to just me but I think they probably will be
dealt with
... it's about ensuring that semantics are described
sufficiently and making sure that metadata can be attached to
datasets
... probably more a narrative thing than a new specific BP
jtandy: we probably need an action to evaluate BPs in the light
of Rob's review
roba: a lot of it is about re-use of vocabularies. How far
should we go in the BP towards picking a specific vocabulary
... for example the updated time ontology, the updated SSN
ontology, Josh's lightweight 'spatial thing' ontology
... should we hav e a generic recommendation that people look
by preference to OGC as an international standards organisation
for existing vocabularies - as opposed to eg student projects
etc
jtandy: we are recommending that people use established and
well-documented vocabularies
<jtandy> (coming to ByronCinNZ next!)
jtandy: so the question is should we recommend new work from
the SDW group which, because it's new, is not yet an
established practice?
roba: a lot of stuff can be simplified by the generic practice
of 'look at existing OGC work first'
ByronCinNZ: SDW is aiming mostly at general web developers, not
spatial data professionals. Data on the Web was aimed at a more
experienced audience
... the SSN part in contrast seems aimed at expert level people
... so seems a bit inconsistent in tone
roba: agrees with Byron. Probably too much detail at present in
the BP
jtandy: so specifics of the SSN work could go into a separate
primer, part of the SSN package of things
Linda: so BPs 16,17,18,19 and 20 should be removed from here
and adopted by the SSN group. Is that right?
jtandy: let's work through those one at a time
PROPOSAL: BP16 is migrated to SSN work
<Linda> BP16 = [16]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-notaligned
[16] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-notaligned
<jtandy> Best Practice 16: Provide context required to
interpret observation data values
<jtandy> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<Linda> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<MattPerry> +1
+1
<Linda> BP16 = #provide-context
roba: some of this comes down to metadata about specific pieces
of data. So yes, the sensor bits could be moved to the SSN
work, but some of this is more generic and not otherwise well
handled in the BP work
<scribe> ACTION:ByronCinNZ to review Data on the Web best
practices document to see if this is covered [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
jtandy: Byron, please work with Rob to distil the key
information and present it back to the group
roba: again, note the UCR/SSN review
jtandy is redrafting the previous proposal:
<jtandy> proposal: specifics of BP 16 relating to sensors and
observations should be covered in SSN work, the general case of
interpreting entity-level metadata needs further consideration
in the BP doc
<jtandy> proposal: specifics of BP 16 relating to sensors and
observations should be covered in SSN work, the general case of
identifiable entity-level metadata needs further consideration
in the BP doc
<jtandy> (it's all about the user's ability to find the entity
level metadata and understand it)
<jtandy> ... scratch that change!
roba: 'identifiable' because it's about the user's ability to
find and understand metadata. But...could I withdraw that
suggested change!
<jtandy> proposal: specifics of BP 16 relating to sensors and
observations should be covered in SSN work, the general case of
interpreting entity-level metadata needs further consideration
in the BP doc
<jtandy> +1
<roba> +1
+1
<ClausStadler_> +1
<Linda> +1
RESOLUTION: specifics of BP 16 relating to sensors and
observations should be covered in SSN work, the general case of
interpreting entity-level metadata needs further consideration
in the BP doc
<ChrisLittle> +0
<jtandy> Best Practice 17: Describe sensor data processing
workflows
jtandy: so this means BP16 will be removed and we'll review
whether the generic stuff is covered
<Linda> BP17 = #describe-process
<jtandy> proposal: BP 17 is way too specific for the Best
Practice work - the details of working with sensor data
processing workflows should be covered in the ssn work
<jtandy> +1
<ClausStadler_> +1
<Linda> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<roba> +1
+1
<jtandy> Best Practice 18: Relate observation data to the real
world
RESOLUTION: BP17 moved to SSN work
<Linda> BP18 = #relate-obs
roba: this is a special case of linking best practice
<jtandy> propsal: BP 18 is a special case of the linking best
practices; remove from BP doc and address this concern as an
example
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
<roba> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<ClausStadler_> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<jtandy> Best Practice 19: How to work with crowd-sourced
observations
<Linda> BP19 = #crowd-obs
RESOLUTION: remove BP18 from BP doc and address as an example
jtandy: concerns about what makes crowd-sourced data different
from anything else
... it's less about the end user but our BPs are more relevant
as guidance to the aggregator or app/API builder
... is there anything more general about crowdsourced data that
should be covered by a BP?
<ByronCinNZ> +1
ChrisLittle: we need examples of how it is or isn't different
to other data to help us decide
... one difference is the typical lack of quality assurance
around crowdsourced data
Linda: if the difference is mostly in the data quality, we
could mention it in the quality BP as an example or special
case
ChrisLittle: another difference is the volume of crowdsourced
data
ByronCinNZ: this is a big topic, with a lot of variation. eg
OpenStreetMap with a lot of process, versus others with no
control at all. We don't have a good enough definition of the
different types to be able to provide good guidance. It's a big
can of worms
ClausStadler_: availability of provenance information on
crowdsourced data is another difference to other types. It's
iportant to have provenance to be able to decide whether to
trust it
jtandy: maybe all the topics around crowdsourced data are out
of scope for us. It's up to platform providers to decide their
own governance arrangements?
ByronCinNZ: in some ways, it's another kind of sensor
jtandy: the Narrative includes an example of crowdsourced data,
eg tweeting 'the flooding has reached my building', 'I have
food to share', photos of flooding inside buildings
... this is spatial data. How should those platforms capture
and share the spatial data?
... Hopefully the narrative will help us decide if the
crowdsourcing aspect is significant
... so I think we should leave BP18 in the 'Other' section of
the document for now and discuss further at TPAC.
<jtandy> Best Practice 20: How to publish (and consume) sensor
data streams
<Linda> BP20 = #pub-streams
(correction above: BP19 should stay in the 'Other' section, not
BP18)
<jtandy> Proposal: BP 20 should be removed from BP document;
DWBP already covers the general case of data streaming and
there is nothing inherently geospatial about it
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
<roba> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<ClausStadler_> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<ChrisLittle> 0
RESOLUTION: BP20 should be removed from BP document
<jtandy> Best Practice 15: Provide a minimum set of information
for your intended application
<Linda> BP15 = #minimum
jtandy: this is a bit like Rob's point about identifying your
users and picking a vocabulary appropriate/familiar to them
roba: this is hard to test as a recommendation. BP0 had some
very specific info about what's useful in a spatial context
ByronCinNZ: this has a lot of overlap with the one on make your
data indexable by search engines
<Linda>
[18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_consolidation_propo
sal
[18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_consolidation_proposal
Linda: you proposed to remove this one as it is covered by
DWBP16
jtandy: I think we should probably drop it as it's difficult to
test, but we should do a bit of assessment first
... there was an agenda item to talk about TPAC planning. I'll
set up a wiki page for TPAC topics and ask people to contribute
ideas. ok?
+1
<roba> +1
linda and roba agree too
<ChrisLittle> +0 not going to TPAC
jtandy: AOB?
... no
<ChrisLittle> Bye
<jtandy> bye
bye
<ByronCinNZ> quit
<ByronCinNZ> bye
<jtandy> RRSAgent generate minutes
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: ByronCinNZ to review Data on the Web best
practices document to see if this is covered [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [20]minutes approved
2. [21]specifics of BP 16 relating to sensors and observations
should be covered in SSN work, the general case of
interpreting entity-level metadata needs further
consideration in the BP doc
3. [22]BP17 moved to SSN work
4. [23]remove BP18 from BP doc and address as an example
5. [24]BP20 should be removed from BP document
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 09:24:07 UTC