- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:09:01 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The new year has begun (rather like the end of the old year) with the
minutes of today's meeting at
http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes
Please note that the editors of the BP doc are asking for your review in
the coming 7 days with a view to voting to *publish* the doc as a W3C
First Public Working Draft/OGC Draft Discussion paper this time *next week*.
See http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
A text snapshot of today's meeting is provided below.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
06 Jan 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160106
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
Scott Simmons, eparsons, kerry, phila, Payam, jtandy,
frans, robin, ClemensPortele, ChrisLittle, MattPerry,
SimonCox
Regrets
Rachel, Alejandro, Linda, Andrea, Bill
Chair
Ed
Scribe
Kerry
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]best practice deliverable
__________________________________________________________
<eparsons> Chair: eparsons
<BartvanLeeuwen> presen+ BartvanLeeuwen
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2016
<BartvanLeeuwen> -1
<phila>
[6]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Teleconference
_Agendas_and_minutes
[6]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Teleconference_Agendas_and_minutes
<scribe> scribe: Kerry
<scribe> scribenick: Kerry
scribe+ kerry
<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
<phila> Last meeting's minutes
[7]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
[7] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
<eparsons> [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
[8] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ChrisLittle> What is the Webex password please?
<Payam> +1
<ClemensPortele> +0 (wasn't there)
<eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes
<ChrisLittle> +1 minute but not there
<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
RESOLUTION: appove last weeks minutes
[9]http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
[9] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes
<robin> +0
ED: robin requested to intro
... no answer from robin
<robin> Hi, I am a student from University of Calgary
Robin: PhD student from U Calgary
... works with Steve Liang of sesnor things API
eparsons: welcome
<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
<eparsons> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
eparsons: no comments wrt patent call
<eparsons> Topic : Best Practice - Progress to date
best practice deliverable
jtandy: I will do most of discussion, payam pls jump in
... linda is holidaying in the sun
<ChrisLittle> +1 phila
jtandy: .... question to phila re new style change
... almost signed off, easy change for a Note, just a respec
tweak
phila: yes, starts from 1 feb
... cannot use before then
jtandy: so it will have a sidebar with ToC, but we will beat
the new style adn will use the existing style for our fpwd
phila: asking Scott about 3 week ucr process that took 8 days
second time -- for this new fpwd will it be 1 week or 3?
ssimmons: 3 weeks review plus 8 day vote
phila: so will be feb
jtandy: questions the 3 weeks
ssimmons: if only for review can skip the 3 weeks wait, could
be zero wait -- you can approve now
<ChrisLittle> +1 to release doc for public review
jtandy: this is a stable snapshot of unfinished work so does
not need a TC vote
ssimmons: confirmed
... this gropu can approve it. it only needs to go to
geosemantics group in final release
jtandy: our plan was to provide stable snapshot today and vote
in meeting next week -- but that vote may be subject to changes
being made
phila: yes, depending on content -- the tues or thurs after the
next meeting is ok with review over next 7 days
<jtandy> [11]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[11] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
phila: that means tuesday 19 Jan for publication, all being
straightforward
jtandy: BP doc review -- I will cover from the top in summary
... please mail changes to public mail list this week
<phila> chair: eparsons
jtandy: for direct text changes that you provide we will apply
them
<phila> agenda:
[12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201601
06
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160106
jtandy: for something without the text we will record an issue
but not make the change
... for difficult things that are drastically wrong and you
could not support in vote please attend call and discuss next
week
phila: this is important --- in another group we had some
approval subject to changes but we ended up with public doc
with a no vote against it
... please ensure that you are indeed happy before we publish
as we want to get this right
<phila> [13]The Current Ed Draft of the BP doc
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
jtandy: abstract is a short para for press release that will
bring people to see it
... next is status of doc trying to resolve a number of things
raised in last meeting ... focus on concerns raised in last
meeting, evidence needed
eparsons: i think t his is what we needed -- perhaps should go
in press release too
jtandy: eparsons can write the press release to do this!
... ... at the bottom of intro is issue-81 (reads out)
frans: Q about intro: what is the reltionship between this doc
and the charter deliverable for best practice? restful API and
spatial ontology?
<frans> BP deliverable in the charter:
[14]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#bp
[14] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#bp
jtandy: i picked out charter things to include in abstract as
here (sumarises abstract)
... are you saying there are BP deliverables from charter that
are not in this note?
frans: yes
... (reads from charter) ... an ontology is not a document --
what do we do with this?
<KJanowicz> I agree with Ed
eparsons: we have not got to finding we need this yet
jtandy: we plan at this point to review whate there is and to
say what to use and when, we may not need to make a new one
<SimonCox> +1 franz!
frans: there is a need for harmonisation of existing standards
we need to do this
<KJanowicz> IMHO, there is a need for such an ontology
<KJanowicz> (and related ontologies)
jtandy: frans please write down a note for this and I will
include a comment in our intro about this -- that we might make
something new but our first attempt is to review an recommend
existing
frans: also needd for API deliverable
<Payam> +q
jtandy: I beleive we are offering advice on APIs and not
defining one -- this looks the right approach
frans: agrees that APi may not be neccessary but we need to
leave this option open where requirements are not met by
existing solutions
Payam: part of what Frans is looking for may arise from
examples as we get to those
eparsons: agrees , also a broader point is that we will
identify gaps we may not be able to fill but just identify
these due to lack of resources
SimonCox: exercise becomes a meta-exercies if e do not address
the gaps
eparsons: points out that we do have limited time -- we need to
be realistic
jtandy: in some places we have expert opinions amongst us and
we can answer those gaps. e.g. issue-81
... simon says just cataloguing is insufficient
SimonCox: a list of gaps is not a useful list of best practices
jtandy: we might have to identify what is needed that we cannot
do
eparsons: best practice must be practice -- if we see a gap our
solution we design in a short time is not best practice
<phila> W3C doesn't have a definition of Best Practice - WGs
are sovereign!
ClemensPortele: both views are valid --- one option could be to
create a new document type or additional deliverables to close
the gaps?
jtandy: acking Phil's comment , it is what we want to make it.
we can make additional deliverables as we see fit but
resourcing is an issue
<frans> an agreed spatial ontology conformant to the ISO 19107
abstract model and based on existing available ontologies such
as GeoSPARQL, NeoGeo and the ISA Core Location vocabulary
jtandy: lets see how this goes as we identify the gaps
frans: charter says based on existing ontologies -- suggesting
it does not exist yet
jtandy: too much choice at moment -- do we really need another
choice?
+q
<KJanowicz> (and there are also cases where we have not
suitable vocabulary/ontology)
<phila> [15]LGD Report conclusion
[15] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/lgd/report#conclusion
phila: this arose from the workshop in the final panel session,
stuart williams said "where do i pour the concrete"
<KJanowicz> +q
phila: so charter says we have all these things already but
what is someone to do? workshop said do we pick one and forget
all the rest or advise what is needed in the right situation,
or should we just change something existing a bit?
<frans> I like the option of picking the best ontology and try
to improve it
phila: charter aims to not predefine the decision of the
working group about how to deal with this
... you can do, if you choose, a comply or explain model -- it
really is this group's decision how we solve this.
frans: I like the 3rd option, not developing and not picking
but improving the best one a little
<KJanowicz> IMHO, we should work on the interface level and
there is actually tons of work left to be done there
<phila> In case anyone hasn't seen it...
[16]http://xkcd.com/927/
[16] http://xkcd.com/927/
frans: we could empower other working groups to help us
kerry: our use cases to identify some missing things and we may
need a core vocab
<frans> Yes. A simple core ontology that is extensible would be
a great achievement
KJanowicz: e.g moving objects and trajectories is a common task
that has specific requirements... types of measurements is
another one.. common guidance at least could be provided
ChrisLittle: Being blunt, we should not be scared to point to
bad practices such as using WGS84 for highly precise locations
<KJanowicz> IMHO, our work should be about finding and defining
the common cores underlying the solutions that exist out there
and enabling these common core vocabularies to become the
minimal interoperability layer used to translate between the
more application oriented vocabularies.
phila: Denise or Bart has mentioned that if we advise geosparql
1.1 then we will.
<KJanowicz> agreed, but this is about striking the right
balance
phila: iso core location vocab aimed to identify hight level
core stuff but it turns out not to be useful on its own and
then you start developing application profiles vey fast
... to make interoperability to practically work you really
need someone to tell you what to do -- this is a difficult
balance between theory and practice
<ssimmons> +1
eparsons: this doc should be aimed at practitioners
<KJanowicz> Agreed but somebody needs to explain what ways are
out there to deal, for instance, with measurement types, what
the pros&cons of these approaches are, and which one should be
used if you need guidance.
jtandy: i will update intro and some other section about
helping people choose the right one and make a new one if we
need to
... now talking about how we deal with issues
... e.g see the issue box -- not the order in doc is order of
creationg in github
<jtandy> [17]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/81
[17] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/81
jtandy: to repond to issues please click on link in doc and
leave your comments there in github
please work on issues this way -- is that ok?
frans: are github acounts needed?
jtandy... comments are public, but you need to be signed in
<eparsons> +1 to issue managment
scribe: this is good for eds to track issues using github
... now issue-79 about sdis
<jtandy> [18]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
[18] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
scribe: sections on audience, scope, best practices template,
summary with all bps listd
... summary is auto-generated
... top level sections after that should be no surprise --
there are 30
<jtandy> [19]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api
[19] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api
scribe: please discuss this section now
... may not need resolution prior to fpwd?
... but how much of this is about spatial data in particular?
is this in the right place or does it belong in a broader
document than ours?
... will sek to merge those tables as we go on, also ross ref
requirements, also appendix b, incomplete glossary, set of
references,
... pls provide feedback on mailing list ideally resolved
before next week -- anything outstanding to be discussed in
meting next week.
<phila> W3C Draft = OGC draft Discussion Paper
scribe: not not finished -- only FPWD
Payam: all covered
<eparsons>
[20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam
[20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam
eparsons: reminder for f2f only a month away hosted by geonovum
+q
<BartvanLeeuwen> bye
scribe: please read the doc and make your comments well before
next meeting
<frans> Bye, have a great year
<ChrisLittle> bye and thanks
<KJanowicz> bye
scribe: and come to meeting to vote!!!!!
<ClemensPortele> thanks - bye!
<MattPerry> bye
<eparsons> bye
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 21:09:08 UTC