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

[minutes] 2016-01-27

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:09:27 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56A93207.5060008@w3.org>
The minutes of today's minutes are, predictably enough, at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-sdw-minutes.

Lots of interesting discussion about RDF Bias before we went on to close 
lots of actions. Always a good thing to do.

Text snapshot of the minutes are pasted below.


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

27 Jan 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160127

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           eparsons, Kerry, jtandy, robin, aharth, SimonCox,
           ScottSimmons, Linda, ClausStadler, frans, ahaller2,
           ClemensPortele, MattPerry, AndreaPerego, BartvanLeeuwen,
           josh

    Regrets
           Lars, Payam, Alejandro, JonBlower, Rachel, Jon

    Chair
           Ed

    Scribe
           KJanowicz

Contents

      * [4]Topics
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

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

    <trackbot> Date: 27 January 2016

    <eparsons> agenda:
    [7]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016012
    7

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160127

    <eparsons> chair: eparsons

    <eparsons> Morning Kerry !!

    <eparsons> Evening jtandy !

    <lewismc> Hi Folks, it's Lewis here. Can someone provide me
    with the password for Webex?

    <eparsons> both i have msg'd to you

    <eparsons> only wenex audi issues ;-(

    I can do it

    <eparsons> scribe : KJanowicz

    <frans> Thanks KJanowicz (I know it can be challenging to
    scribe)

    <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [8]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-sdw-minutes

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-sdw-minutes

    <kerry> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    +1

    <frans> +1

    <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

    <robin> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

    <phila> +0 wasn't there

    <eparsons> [9]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    <ahaller2> +1

    <eparsons> Topic : F2F meeting agenda

    <eparsons> [10]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_F2F3

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_F2F3

    <frans> I put two comments on the wiki

    <phila> [11]Attendee list for Amersfoort

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F3

    <phila> [12]Agenda for Amersfoort

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_F2F3

    Ed: first item of agenda today is looking at our F2F in the NL.
    much of the focus will be on BP and we have a fair amount of
    detail and understanding about this but how much do we have on
    SSN and how many SSN related people will we have there?

    Frans discussing comments made about the agenda wrt use cases.

    Kerry: need enough time to discuss the coverage topic.
    ... not sure how deep we can get into the Time deliverable

    <ClausStadler> >> And you ClausStadler - do you know if you're
    going to come yet? - Unfortunately not yet, will sort it out
    until beginning of next week - will update the wiki then as
    well.

    Ed: entire afternoon on first day for BP and maybe Tuesday in
    the morning. not clear how many people we have for Coverage and
    Time.

    Kerry: SSN folks will mostly join by telcon so we need to keep
    this in the afternoon.

    phila: End of February we will invest more time for the
    Coverage deliverable. It will be a very small topic at the F2F.

    kerry: can we move the Coverage topic to the afternoon of the
    second day?

    <eparsons> Topic : BP Issue - RDF bias, what is it and how do
    we deal with it...

    Ed: do we accept the fact that we are biased towards RDF?

    <jtandy> see ISSUE 225 at
    [13]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225

    Linda: Useful topic to address. We established as a group that
    we want to promote Linked Data so yes maybe we are RDF biased
    but it should not be our only solution in the BP. We should
    also point to other solutions.

    +1

    <SimonCox> Is there an alternative to 'linked data'?

    <joshli> Do we have any other "accessible" means of defining
    semantics and representing it?

    ClemensPortele: it really sounds like you have to use RDF and
    the entire Semantic Web layer cake to follow BP. do we want
    that?
    ... we need to be more open.

    <jtandy> note that JSON-LD is designed to allow web developers
    to do great things with information without needing to use
    _any_ RDF machinery

    <phila> KJanowicz: I agree with the general sentiment but we
    couldn't try to solve all the problems at once

    <jtandy> see manu sporny's comments on JSON-LD and RDF here:
    [14]http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ ...
    "Decision 3: Kick RDF in the Nuts"

      [14] http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/

    <phila> ... We can't do SSN without the Sem Web Layer Cake for
    example

    <phila> ... I can see the point, but our BPs are targeted
    towards that

    Linked Data without RDF?

    <eparsons> +1

    <jtandy> quoting manu sporny again "I personally wanted JSON-LD
    to be compatible with RDF, but that’s about it."

    <phila> +1 to giving little or no wiggle room on using URIs as
    identifiers

    <aharth> +1 to frans: use HTTP URIs would be a good first step

    <phila> +1 to talk about conneg and HAL

    <joshli> If we don't use explicit semantics, e.g. with pdf,
    then the best practices will need to incorporate (and define)
    implicit semantics in recommended syntax.

    jtandy: Use a Linked Data approach is what we want so, e.g.,
    using HTTP but this does not mean that we need to focus merely
    on RDF.

    <jtandy> [15]http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/

      [15] http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/

    <AndreaPerego> +1 to HTTP URIs & conneg

    <joshli> ^pdf^rdf !

    KJanowicz: so what is this telling us about our own W3C
    standards?

    <ClemensPortele> If "linked data approach" means using HTTP
    (incl. conneg) and URIs I am ok with that

    Ed: we do not always need the full 5 Linked Data stars

    <frans> I like RDF, but it can be overwhelming and we do not
    want to overwhelm our audience without just cause

    <joshli> If we are working with data on the Web, then it needs
    to be clear that URI's are resolvable (i.e. also URL's).

    <AndreaPerego> First we should go for 'webby data". LD is the
    next step.

    AndreaPerego: plain Uris is already a clear improvement. so
    lets really start at the beginning.

    <frans> RDF should certainly have a place in best practices
    about semantics

    Ed: explain that there is a range of individual BP with
    increasing value as you move along.

    <joshli> It would be useful, perhaps, to come up with best
    practices that represent different degrees of formalism.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about conneg and HAL

    <phila> [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#APIHttpVerbs

      [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#APIHttpVerbs

    <phila> [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#globally-unique-ids

      [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#globally-unique-ids

    phila: HTTP URIs is a wonderful first BP but this does not yet
    imply RDF. Content negotiation is greatly underused. You can
    get RDF, JSON, KML,...

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to remind people to type "present+
    <name>" after this topic is finished

    <jtandy> [paraphrasing my thoughts ... in each theme introduce
    people to increasing technological complexity; starting simple
    (e.g. KML or GML accessed via HTTP Get) and working toward 5*
    Linked Data ... avoid the perception that you have to start
    with RDF]

    <phila> KJanowicz: Just to agree with what has been said. We're
    in a bit of a spot with our old WWW standards. There's a long
    tail. We need to talk about the linkage

    <phila> ... How would you talk about the inferences? SSN?

    <phila> ... We can say at the beginning of hte doc that HTTP is
    basic and you can work your way to more complex things.

    <jtandy> +1 to KJanowicz ... describe in the introduction that
    you begin with a simple approach of HTTP URIs and HTTP Get ...
    and then move onto describing how links [should] work etc.

    <joshli> There is not necessarily conflict between "well-known"
    semantics, a link to a narrative, and a set of triples that
    define formal semantics, but it is most useful to have all of
    those available.

    ClemensPortele: agree with KJanowicz. We need to provide more
    structure. All these ontologies will require the Semantic Web
    layer cake and so forth. That said, we should also look at
    other examples that aim more at Web developers.

    <jtandy> +1 to ClemensPortele ... describe tools like Swagger
    that help web developers use the data

    <eparsons> Topic : Outstanding Actions review

    <eparsons>
    [18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/open

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/open

    <phila> 'Overtaken by events' is a commonly used phrase when
    closing actions no one can remember

    <SimonCox> Link to glossary on wiki?

    jtandy: ACTION-25 we still all need to have a look on the
    glossary and continue working on this. Action remains open.

    <SimonCox>
    [19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms

    AndreaPerego: ACTION-48: It is covered in BP. Will do one more
    check and then it can be closed.

    <phila> close action-48

    <trackbot> Closed action-48.

    eparsons: ACTION-57: in fact we received no comments from the
    ogc channels. We can close 57.

    <phila> action-57?

    <trackbot> action-57 -- Ed Parsons to Monitor ogc channels for
    feedback on the ucr draft once released as an ogc document --
    due 2015-08-31 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/57

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/57

    <eparsons> action-58

    <trackbot> action-58 -- Kerry Taylor to Keep in contact with
    wot re actuation -- due 2015-07-15 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/58

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/58

    <phila> close action-57

    <trackbot> Closed action-57.

    <eparsons> action-60

    <trackbot> action-60 -- Kerry Taylor to Follow up with svg --
    due 2015-08-12 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/60

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/60

    kerry: action-58 is still ongoing.

    <eparsons> close action-60

    <trackbot> Closed action-60.

    kerry: action-60 --> we need to keep going, lets close this
    one.

    <eparsons> action-74

    <trackbot> action-74 -- Andrea Perego to Ensure we are not
    missing entirely important user requirements -- due 2015-09-16
    -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/74

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/74

    <eparsons> close action-74

    <trackbot> Closed action-74.

    Andrea Perego: action-74 can be closed now.

    <eparsons> action-81

    <trackbot> action-81 -- Kerry Taylor to Map use cases to bp
    themes -- due 2015-10-07 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/81

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/81

    <eparsons> close action-81

    <trackbot> Closed action-81.

    kerry: action-81 we finished a lot of that and can probably
    consider it done.

    <eparsons> close action-84

    <trackbot> Closed action-84.

    <SimonCox> Hemispherism from Mr Tandy there

    <eparsons> action-85

    <trackbot> action-85 -- Bart van Leeuwen to Write up a bp
    around properties in wfs to link a feature to its linked data
    version -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85

    BartvanLeeuwen: action-85 will try to finish this for F2F

    <eparsons> action-86

    <trackbot> action-86 -- Jeremy Tandy to Check the bp for
    versioning given in dwbp -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/86

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/86

    <eparsons> close action-86

    <trackbot> Closed action-86.

    <eparsons> action-87

    <trackbot> action-87 -- Ed Parsons to Arrange meeting with dwbp
    editors to discuss citations in early december -- due
    2015-11-03 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/87

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/87

    <phila> I'm looking at how I might set up a DCAT WG that would
    handle versioning in particular

    <SimonCox> is this 'citations' or 'cross-references' or
    'alignment'?

    <frans> To me versioning seems to be a dcterms issue primarily

    <SimonCox> Or 'factoring of concerns'?

    <jtandy> [next DWBP F2F meeting is one month after SDW F2F3]

    <eparsons> action-89

    <trackbot> action-89 -- Jeremy Tandy to Write how this
    datacube/gazeteer/foreign key works -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/89

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/89

    <kerry> can we do the call just next week's meeting? that would
    be better i think

    <eparsons> close action-89

    <trackbot> Closed action-89.

    jtandy: action-89 we need to do more work on this but we do not
    need to keep this action open.

    <eparsons> action-92

    <trackbot> action-92 -- Alejandro Llaves to add link to data
    sample in use case "Publication of air quality data
    aggregations" -- due 2015-11-09 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/92

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/92

    <eparsons> action-94

    <trackbot> action-94 -- Bart van Leeuwen to Write about make
    the links within the dataset discoverable -- due 2015-11-18 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/94

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/94

    <jtandy> [DWBP folks want to go to CR straight after their F2F,
    so time is short ... need to engage with DWBP editors in the
    week following SDW F2F]

    action-94 has to be reasigned.

    <frans> A new action to reassign action 94?

    Ed: any other business?

    <SimonCox> Are dialin details for Amersfoort available yet?

    <SimonCox> Please put them in agenda asap

    <SimonCox> thanks all

    <lewismc> Thank you very much, see you next time. Best.

    bye bye

    <jtandy> bye

    <ClemensPortele> bye - thanks

    <ahaller2> bye

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks! Bye
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 21:09:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:11 UTC