RE: [Minutes] 2016-01-13 - coming to Amersfort?

Hoping to attend, dependent on funding...

Phil - I may well be on that ferry too !

Linda - is there a deadline for registration for the Wednesday seminar ? (apologies if I've missed this somewhere)

Thanks,
Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
Sent: 13 January 2016 21:12
To: SDW WG Public List
Subject: [Minutes] 2016-01-13 - coming to Amersfort?

The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes with a snapshot below.

Main things this week were the resolution to publish the BP doc (as a W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion paper). That should happen on Tuesday.

If you haven't done so already, please indicate whether and how you can participate in the F2F in Amersfoort next month - it's only 4 weeks away
- by filling in the wiki page at
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F3


UK folks might be interested in joining me on the overnight Harwich-Hoek van Holland ferry on the Sunday and Wednesday nights :-)

Anyway, text version of minutes is below.



           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

13 Jan 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160113


    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-irc


Attendees

    Present
           frans, eparsons, jtandy, phila, kerry, ClemensPortele,
           ScottSimmons, Payam, billroberts, Linda, ClausStadler,
           MattPerry, RaulGarciaCastro, SimonCox, Kerry, LarsG,
           AndreaPerego

    Regrets
           Alejandro, Antoine, Bart, Josh, Rachel

    Chair
           Kerry

    Scribe
           phila

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]Best Practice: Resolve to publish FPWD
          3. [7]F2F meeting Netherlands 8-10 February
             https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterda

             m
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <eparsons> Evening all !

    <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
    Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 13 January 2016

    <scribe> agenda:
    [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201601

    13

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160113


    <scribe> scribe: phila

Preliminaries

    PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
    [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes


      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes


    <kerry> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes.html


      [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes.html


    <RaulGarciaCastro> Hi, which is the meeting password for WebEx?

    <frans> +1

    <jtandy> v4qtEh56

    <kerry> +1

    <jtandy> ... is the password

    <eparsons> +1 for minutes

    <jtandy> +1

    +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
    [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes


      [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes


    <Linda> +0 was absent

    <RaulGarciaCastro> thanks jtandy

    Patent Call
    [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call


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


Best Practice: Resolve to publish FPWD

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

    Editors' Draft of the BP Doc

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


    kerry: Invites editors to introduce the topic

    jtandy: happy to introduce the topic
    ... Since creating last week's more or less stable version.
    ... I;ve had comments from people who have read the doc from
    end to end.
    ... I am still processing Rachel's comments, plus Clemens,
    Frans and Bill
    ... Last week we talked about getting a better connection
    between the BP doc and the charter
    ... You'll see in section 3 that there are now references to
    the charter
    ... What I've been doing mostly... If I;ve had a suggestion for
    a literal change, I've almost always just taken that nad used
    it.
    ... Where people have raised more of a question, I have raised
    an issue
    ... each issue is linked to the issue discussion in GH
    ... discussion is all in GH, we can make a resolutiona nd close
    it with a Pull request
    ... Readers will see that this work isn't finshed yet.
    ... Suggsted changes have been focussed on making thre wording
    correct, cf. large changes
    ... A couple of changes, eg one from Ed, re Geospatisl
    custodian cf. expert
    ... that would ripple throuhg the doc so I haven't made that
    change
    ... Rachel suggests that the BP on sensor data flows isn't
    really in scope.
    ... A quick read through Clemens' comments suggest that some of
    our BPs don't have a particular spatial theme.
    ... Whetehr we want to make those changes ahead of FPWD is up
    to the WG.

    <frans> I think the thoroughness of processing the commments is
    impressive. Well done!

    jtandy: Most comments seem to suggest that we are in a good
    place for a FPWD.
    ... Any particular things you want me to bring out ahead of the
    vote, chairs?

    kerry: I'd like to respond to your way of handling the comments
    coming in late.
    ... What to do about those issues that are outstanding - none
    of them seem very substantive
    ... I'd like to resolve that we accept the doc as it is,
    recognising that there is more to do, which the doc does
    ... So I'd like to vote on the doc in its current form without
    any conditions

    Linda: Nothing from me, pls go ahead

    Payam: Or me

    eparsons: I agree with kerry. Those comments are in the doc
    ... So I'm happy with the doc as it is. It's the FPWD so the
    expectation is that there will be a list of issues.

    jtandy: I did manage to close an issue (and open 40
    ... You said that we don't need to resolve the issues before we
    publish the FPWD
    ... I think kerry was saying that she doesn't need to see the
    comments still being worked on before we vote.

    eparsons: I think we're voting on the doc as it is now, without
    the last minute editorial changes

    <SimonCox> After all its just a First Working Draft!

    jtandy: It may be that I can make those non-substantive changes
    before we vote

    billroberts: I don't think my edits are substantive, so I'm OK
    with it as it stands

    <kerry> ack

    billroberts: I don't think it makes much odds whether it's
    included before or after FPWD

    phila: Asks for clarity on whether comments currently in hand
    will be made before or after FPWD

    jtandy: Is asking the WG to decide that

    <ClemensPortele> I am ok both ways, i.e. I have no problems
    with processing my comments after the FPWD!

    kerry: Everyone so far has said publish as it is now

    eparsons: That's my understanding too. We need to vote on it as
    it is now, even if changes are made in an hour's time

    <frans> Very well to publish the doc as it is. Main thing is
    the issues are recorded.

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    ScottSimmons: No comments from me, I'm ready to publish too.

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    jtandy: I think the doc shows where we're going. I recognise
    that there is still a long way from where we are now to a
    useful guide, but as a first draft, it's OK

    kerry: Any more comments? Editors?

    Linda: I agree with jtandy. Still a lot of work to do before it
    becomes useful, but as it is, it shows what we want to write
    down.

    <frans> To the editors: do let the other members do some work
    too.

    <jtandy> [we hope to be able to talk to real practitioners at
    the F2F meeting in the Nederlands next month]

    Linda: And I'd like to thank all the people who have reviewed
    the doc in the last week. V helpful

    PROPOSED: That the BP document at
    [16]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published as it is now as a
    W3C FPWD/OGC discussion paper

      [16] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/


    <SimonCox> +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <frans> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <Payam> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    <robin_> +1

    RESOLUTION: That the BP document at
    [17]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published as it is now as a
    W3C FPWD/OGC discussion paper

      [17] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/


    <eparsons> Thx Eds !!!!

    PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to the editors

    +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <frans> +3

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to the editors

    <SimonCox> U+1F44F/U+E41F

    <kerry> scott: we should do a press release for public comment?

    <SimonCox> (Emoji for round of applause)

    <kerry> phila: on home page, not a press releease

    <kerry> scott: will put on our home page too -- talk furter
    about more publicity

    <kerry> phila: no more edits today -- can you make a snapshot
    so I know I have the right one please?

    <kerry> jtandy: will do

    <kerry> phila: will not yet be linked; will send link to scott

    <frans> Is it possible for the public to post the same comments
    that we already have? If yes, should we prevent that?

    eparsons: I think we need to communicate that this is a work in
    progress.
    ... we need to make it clear that this isn't finished, it's
    some way away from where we're heading
    ... So we need to set expectations

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask one more thing

    phila: Are you all OK with /TR/sdw-bp as the short URI

    <jtandy> is ok with me

    <kerry> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <frans> Would Eds remark constitute a change in the doc?

    <Payam> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <kerry> phila: how do we track comments:

    phila: How did you track comments in CSVW

    <kerry> jtandy: use the email list and create a github issue to
    track dialogue

    <kerry> jtandy: repond to wg email list when closed through the
    github tracker

    jtandy: We ask people to write to the public list. We say we've
    created the GH issue and link to it. We then ask commentator to
    indicate to the public list that they are happy with the
    resolution.
    ... Content, not necessarily happy

    <frans> Will there be a link to the github issues in the
    heading of the document?

    <kerry> phila: what about ogc members -- would they be left
    out?

    ScottSimmons: It would be easier if we disuaded people from
    using our comment system. If they do, I'll monitor and push
    them to your system

    kerry: Any more to say?

    <kerry> F2F meeting Netherlands 8-10 February
    [18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam


      [18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam


F2F meeting Netherlands 8-10 February
[19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam


      [19] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam


    kerry: We have brought this to people's attention but we
    haven't discussed it here.
    ... The dates are 8-10 Feb. The wiki shows a small list of
    people planning to attend. If you haven't done so, please
    record your intention to participate
    ... Let's open up the discussion about what to discuss there?

    Linda: First off - the first 2 days, 8-9, are regular WG
    meetings and the third day is a conference of the Platform
    Linked Data Nederland
    ... They will all be in the conference, plus so EU projects and
    EuroSDR
    ... WE have a short session in the plenary discussion what
    we're doing and there's a session in the afternoon when people
    can discuss what we're doing
    ... So we should discuss what we do in the afternoon on
    Wednesday and what we do in the Wg meeting

    kerry: Let's do the last first.

    <jtandy> my suggestions were:

    <jtandy> find out what problems make it difficult for them to
    publish spatial data

    <jtandy> seek confirmation that the best practices we are
    curating are appropriate

    <jtandy> ask for pointers to real examples 'in the wild' that
    we can reference

    <jtandy> ask how the SDW BP can be made [more] useful to
    practitioners; what do they need, how should it be organised
    etc.

    Linda: I discussed it a little with Jeremy. In the plenary
    meeting we should use our time to introduce our work

    ->
    [20]http://www.pilod.nl/wiki/Geodata_on_The_Web_Event_10_Februa

    ry_2016 Event URL (EN)

      [20]
http://www.pilod.nl/wiki/Geodata_on_The_Web_Event_10_February_2016


    <eparsons> +1 for focus on BP

    <AndreaPerego> +1 also from me

    Linda: Also in the larger session, I'd like a focus on the BPs.
    As a BP editor of course I'd like that. We need to find out
    what problems people have with publishing spatial data. are our
    BPs useful?
    ... Real examples would be useful
    ... Anything they think is useful input to our work
    ... I've talked before about the Geonovum test bed. I'm hoping
    a lot of the participants in the test bed will be there

    phila: It sounds as if some questions might lead to more use
    cases - are we open to that?

    Linda: If we have new ones with new requirements, that would be
    interesting. We don't want to be buried by new work but we
    don't want to miss important stuff
    ... It's pointers to examples of work done we're after

    eparsons: It's good timing. We can test how well the structure
    works, are we helping. A lot of the audience there will bou our
    intended audience, people who have invested in SDIs now looking
    at LD now
    ... If there are changes to be made, it's the perfect timing

    kerry: BP editors - would it be appropriate to pick on some
    issues that we're having trouble with and highlight them?
    ... maybe you won't know what those are until we ask

    jtandy: Rather than identify things upfront, we could perhaps
    do a straw poll and see what is most useful

    kerry: So are you happy to do it at the F2F which means they're
    not on the programme?
    ... Open comments on the doc can be solicited.

    frans: Would it be an idea to have a demo at the F2F?
    ... a demo of a model publication of a small sample dataset?
    ... The Bp doc will contain examples, perhaps we could have a
    real working example in the doc.
    ... Such a model dataset could be a centre of discussion?

    jtandy: The meeting is less than 4 weeks away. I wouldn't be
    able to contribute any time to creating demos and examples
    ... One of the things I hope to achieve in the first couple fo
    days woujld be to bring examples with them so that we can
    collect evidence of where these Bps are being used in the wild
    ... Which might tie in with what you're saying, frans. BP16:
    here is is being used/followed.

    Linda: I think the test bed people will have something to show

    kerry: SO it won't be toally theoretical

    <AndreaPerego> In case, the GeoDCAT-AP API could be used for a
    demo on publishing geo metadata as RDF / on the Web:
    [21]http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/


      [21] http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/


    Linda: No.
    ... Is everyone OK with dedicating the third day to BP
    entirely?

    kerry: There may be use cases but for me, yes

    <jtandy> +1

    <frans> maybe just introduce the time, sensor and coverage
    topics?

    billroberts: On the third day, yes, focus on the BPs
    ... and I agree with Frans that we should introduce the others
    ... I've (been) volunteered to edit the Coverages one and being
    in the room with people who have done deliverables before will
    be very valuable

    kerry: So moving on to the first 2 days.
    ... I would expect at least half a day on BP, and half a day on
    Time.
    ... ANd I'm keen to spend as much as a full day on SSN
    ... But Bill you're obviously keen to talk about it so we
    should try and do a bit of everything
    ... Which is why it's important to know who will be
    there/online
    ... As an aside, I'm hoping to look at SSN next week on this
    call
    ... Sound OK?

    eparsons: I agree with that. It will be so dependent on who is
    there. From the list we have now we could clearly spend all the
    time on BPs, but if we're to look at others, we'll need to
    manage the people/groups who will be there.

    <AndreaPerego> I would suggest: 1 day on BP, half day on Time
    and half day on SSN

    eparsons: We need to get ourselves together and work out the
    agenda before hand, knowing who will be there and when.
    ... The danger is spending all our time doing Bp work.

    <kerry> ACTION: kerry to coordinate ssn editors slot at meeting
    [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Coordinate ssn editors slot at
    meeting [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-01-20].

    <scribe> ACTION: kerry To coordinate the SSN group in terms of
    what is planned for the F2F meeting [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Coordinate the ssn group in
    terms of what is planned for the f2f meeting [on Kerry Taylor -
    due 2016-01-20].

    jtandy: We could talk about BP for 2 days but it might be less
    than communitaire
    ... My preference would be to look at real world examples for
    BP
    ... Looking to Linda and Payam to say yay or nay to focussing
    on examples

    <frans> A general discussion could be about how we can
    encourage collaboration with people and communities outside our
    WG

    Payam: I agree - we don't have many examples now and we need
    them
    ... They'd be very helpful

    Linda: +1

    kerry: Can I remind you to remind us to bring your examples

    phila: Thinks it sounds like 'Show and Tell'

    kerry: I think the BP editors will be there for the whole
    meeting
    ... So I'll ask the BP editors to coordinate, as they'll be
    most flexible. Between half and a full day.

    jtandy: OK, yep

    billroberts: Something like an hour in the schedule would prob
    be enough for me/Coverages
    ... So I'd welcome geospatial help. I'm more LD-centric

    jtandy: It might be worth you catching up with Jon Blower and
    Maik Reichert from Reading university

    <jtandy> [24]https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre


      [24] https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre


    jtandy: Both of them have extensive knowlegde of spatial

    billroberts: I know Jon a little

    phila: +1

    <SimonCox> Is there anyone with a primary interest in
    time-series involved in the coverages activity?

    <AndreaPerego> s/knowlegdeknowlegde/knowledge/

    kerry: I have some mechanisms to contribute

    <jtandy> @SimonCox ... not that I know of

    SimonCox: I think Jon might be interested in time series. I'm
    worried that it'll all be classic remote sensing

    kerry: Those people on the OGC time series work might be
    interested. Someone from GA?

    SimonCox: John Lowe etc.?

    <eparsons> Calling time...

    <kerry> s/john/Dom/

    <frans> s/peopel/people/

    <SimonCox> *Dom* Lowe

    <billroberts> it's easier for me to get to Amersfoort than it
    is to get to Harwich!

    <frans> With luck we will have ice ready for skating

    <SimonCox> (East Anglian dude)

    kerry: We didn't really address how to cover time at the
    meeting but I'll write mail on that.

    <eparsons> thanks all - bye

    <jtandy> bye

    <kJanowicz> bye

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye

    <billroberts> thanks - bye

    <ahaller2> bye

    <robin_> bye

    <ClemensPortele> bye

    <RaulGarciaCastro> bye

    <LarsG> thanks, bye

    <Payam> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: kerry to coordinate ssn editors slot at meeting
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: kerry To coordinate the SSN group in terms of
    what is planned for the F2F meeting [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02


Summary of Resolutions

     1. [27]Accept last week's minutes
        https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes

     2. [28]That the BP document at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be
        published as it is now as a W3C FPWD/OGC discussion paper
     3. [29]Vote of thanks to the editors

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

________________________________
 This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 12:33:37 UTC