- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:07:53 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/06-sdw-minutes
Congratulations to the WG, especially Simon and Chris, for getting the
OWL Time Ontology ready for FPWD/Discussion paper.
Text version of the minutes are included below.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
06 Jul 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/06-sdw-irc
[3]Agenda
[3] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160706
Attendees
Present
aharth, kerry, jtandy, billroberts, phila, Linda,
DanhLePhuoc, roba, ChrisLittle, ahaller2, frans,
MattPerry, AndreaPerego, nicky, BartvanLeeuwen
Regrets
rachel, lars, simoncox, ed
Chair
Kerry
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]approve minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-sdw-minutes.html
2. [6]patent call
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
3. [7]FPWD for time ontology in owl
4. [8]Best Practice Document
5. [9]Progress on BP
6. [10]BP narrative: navigating one's way among multiple
representations (see
https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conneg)
7. [11]Actions
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
approve minutes [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-sdw-minutes.html
[14] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-sdw-minutes.html
<kerry> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<Linda> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<roba> +1
+0 (not present
<billroberts> 0 (sorry missed the last one)
<jtandy> +1
RESOLUTION: Last week's minutes accepted
patent call [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
kerry: Yes, the minutes were from 2 weeks ago, i.e. the
previous plenary meeting
FPWD for time ontology in owl
-> w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ OWL Time Ontology Editors' Draft
kerry: We talked about this 2 weeks ago and the action items
have been done
... Andrea Perego asked for some references to be fixed, which
have been done
... I know Simon is ready to go ahead.
ChrisLittle: The underlying ontology hasn't changed much. Some
constraints have been removed.
... I added some explanatory text about the diff between clocks
and calendars.
... I'm happy with it as a FPWD. WE have some Notes and Issues
but they seem right to me.
<scribe> chair: kerry
ahaller2: We did some changes in SSN last week and updated it
on Protege
kerry: So nothing to do with Time.
... Any other questions and clarifications needed?
PROPOSED: That the Editors' Draft of the OWL Time Ontology at
w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ be published as a W3C FPWD and OGC
Discussion Paper
<ChrisLittle> +1 to fpwd
<jtandy> +1
<roba> +1
<frans> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Linda> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +ยง
<billroberts> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<kerry> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<aharth> +1 (still wondering why DAML-S/OWL-S in Section 6.7 is
still relevant in 2016)
RESOLUTION: That the Editors' Draft of the OWL Time Ontology at
w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ be published as a W3C FPWD and OGC
Discussion Paper
<frans> congratulations! Well done Time Team!
PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Simon and Chris
<jtandy> well done Simon (& Chris)
<Linda> +1
<frans> +1
RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to Simon and Chris
<AndreaPerego> +1
<kerry> +1
<billroberts> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
kerry: Did you notice that comment from aharth?
ChrisLittle: Yes, I'll let Simon take that one. Simon was keen
to maintain backwards compatibility.
... We might end up removing that section
Best Practice Document
Progress on BP
kerry: I think Linda was proposing to do this?
Linda: Not much progress recently as we have all been very busy
with otehr stuff but as of this week we have more time
available
... We are taking another look at DWBP
<jtandy> s/otehr/other/\
phila: Notes that my task after this call is to prepare the
DWBP for Candidate Rec
Linda: We want to work on the narrative and work on the
examples
... There has been some discussion on the mailing list. I have
trouble following those discussions. Sometimes they are very
long.
... The way that people formulate their mails can be confusing.
... For me personally, the list is more of a problem than a
help.
kerry: So how can we work differently?
Linda: Am I the only one with this problem?
kerry: I'm sure not.
<jtandy> +1 to suggest that folks try to summarise discussions?
<AndreaPerego> +1 to Jeremy
<jtandy> (I meant q+ ...)
kerry: If you don't follow them closely, it's easy to lose
track of the conversation
<billroberts> I also don't always have time to keep up wiht the
mailing list discussions
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest that folks try to
summarise discussions?
phila: Suggests browsing the archive rather than using e-mail
client. Threaded view can be arranged I think if needs be.
jtandy: Some of the e-mail threads are short and concise.
Others are very long and you have to read a lot to find out
what's going on.
... You often find that there is a small number of
protagonists. It would be helpful for them to summarise. That
helps everyone, notably the editors who have to follow it.
<frans> Perhaps topic starters could be moderators and
summarize etc.?
jtandy: It's a bit more work but it makes a big difference.
kerry: I would add, if they're substantive, they should be more
persistent, maybe on the wiki
... Thanks Linda
jtandy: I wanted to add to Linda's update.
... When I go through the DWBP, I observe that many of the BPs
that we were trying to write down oursleves are already
represneted in some form in that doc.
... I think we have a chance to restructure the BP doc a little
by reaching back to DWBP more. Should make our doc easier to
read and avoids duplication.
... It might appear dramatic, shortening the doc quite a lot,
but we think it's as valuable as before but shorter.
kerry: That sounds sensible
jtandy: Now that Linda and I have got a whole load of other
work done, I can get to this. 50% of my time on SDW in July
Linda: I also have around 50% of my time for this in July.
<kerry> +1 i like that idea linda!
<jtandy> +1
Linda: More concretely, I think it would make sense to
restructure it to put in the same order as DWBP, so that ours
extends theirs. I'm starting to see it in my head
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about subsetting
<ByronCinNZ> +1 for Linda
phila: Gives update on DWBP status. Document now locked for CR.
jtandy: There are some examples where we can say more specific
things as we're specially spatial. There's a set of BPs around
establishing links between things that rean't in DWBP that
we'll have to add.
... As we write our examples, you'll see us referring to DWBP,
specialisations of those, and some new BPs that are particular
to spatial
phila: Perfect, thank you
BP narrative: navigating one's way among multiple representations
(see [16]https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conneg)
[16] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Conneg)
kerry: You might have seen roba's thread on this
roba: I'll try and summarise.
... There are a number of cases emerging that seem to boil down
to a pattern that hasn't been identified in DWBP specifically,
that differnet sets about the same world object aren't related.
... The coastline of Europe, for example, has multiple
properties of the same object.
... The synatx for the Lined Data API offers named entities.
This is similar to conneg.
... Sounds related to features anda geometries
... Do the examples that exist help us identify best practice?
I think so, but there are implementation challenges.
... jtandy Talked about profiles
<frans> what is the e-mail thread on this subject?
<aharth> fwiw: the GADM data exposes geometries using content
negotation, example linked from the home page at
[17]http://gadm.geovocab.org/
[17] http://gadm.geovocab.org/
roba: I believe we do need ot get to a consensus what the BP is
on this.
... I don't think we've talked about this.
... And there was another use case coming from Frans that isn't
quite the same is getting at the same idea.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about profiles
-> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ SDSVoc
[18] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/
<kerry> this is the email thread:
[19]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/
0025.html
[19]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/0025.html
phila: Talks about SDSVoc and the profiles aspect
jtandy: I'll try and get that in my diary.
... When I listen to the problem Rob's describing, it's a
pattern we see a lot. One real world object but lots of ways of
describing it. Do others recognise this as a challenge?
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<billroberts> yes - it's a challenge
<frans> yes, it is a challenge
Linda: We see it as a challenge too. it came up in the Geonovum
test bed.
... There are many aspects that you want to negotiate on.
<AndreaPerego> +1 also from me.
<frans> No one could hear me?
billroberts: This is a practical problem that we come across.
Differnet geometries/resolutions, as well as serialisations.
... We can do it in RDF with data models that support it.
... You can choose the representation that you want.
... You also want things that chage over time. The
representation as it is now vs what it was a year ago.
... And then there's the open world assumption
<frans> I wanted to say that there is a difference between
different data about a thing within a single data set and
between different data sets. In the latter case the real world
thing has multiple URIs
billroberts: So we have a bunch of mechanisms. Lots of
practices, but which is best? I don't know.
... I don't think there's going to be a single right answer.
kerry: try again frans
[Frans talks to his local mute button]
<frans> Sorry
<frans> I have just typed the things I wanted to say
<frans> at 15:39:48
<AndreaPerego> Just for our records, see this IETF RFC proposal
from Lars (Svensson): "Negotiating Schemas in HTTP",
[20]http://files.dnb.de/svensson/I-D-accept-schema.txt
[20] http://files.dnb.de/svensson/I-D-accept-schema.txt
jtandy: Now that we have validated that this is an issue that
people see in different places, we can go on to talk about what
the BP is.
... This is distinct from the technical implentation. Rob
talked about named views in LinkedData API
... Dret's Draft talks about different representations in
JSON-LD, each one can declare which data model it uses.
... So we can try and identify a number of options at the
November workshop.
... When I think about the definition of a Feature, a feature
type can only be of one type.
roba: I think the distinction between a real world object and
one or models of it... is a real one. I don't think we're fixed
on only one feature type.
... I only mention LinkedData API as a ref, not necessarily
saying it's the best way to go.
... I'm not sure that there's a specially spatial aspect.
... The general case is different info models for differnet
purposes.
ChrisLittle: +1 to Rob. Different data models are part of the
representation. That suggests different search mechanisms might
be more appropriate.
... For example, you might see a 2D map but the underlying
model might be a 3D point cloud but they're of the same thing.
<ahaller2> +1 I think it is a general issue, not a spatial only
phila: Highlights specially spatial aspect of things like
resolution which won't come up in the workshop without SDW
people.
<AndreaPerego> +1 to Phil.
Actions
<kerry>
[21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/overdue
[21] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/overdue
action-25?
<trackbot> action-25 -- Jeremy Tandy to Help with glossary --
due 2015-05-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/25
[22] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/25
kerry: The glossary exists. Anything specific to be done? Can
we close it?
jtandy: I think something that came out was related to use of
the terms like Coverage that are already in the OGC glossary.
kerry: OK, I'll leave it open for now.
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> [23]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85
[23] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85
<kerry> 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> [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85
[24] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85
BartvanLeeuwen: My comment - we have a demo near ready. Nicky's
back from holiday today and we're working on it now. We should
have something in 2 weeks' time.
kerry: Should we schedule time in 2 weeks?
BartvanLeeuwen: Tha should work.
kerry: That's a demo linking a WFS?
BartvanLeeuwen: Yep.
action-101?
<trackbot> action-101 -- Bill Roberts to Compile a list of
geospatial vocabularies in rdf -- due 2015-11-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/101
[25] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/101
<kerry> action-101 ?
<trackbot> action-101 -- Bill Roberts to Compile a list of
geospatial vocabularies in rdf -- due 2015-11-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/101
[26] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/101
kerry: I'm pretty sure that's done.
billroberts: I made a first pass and people contributed.
... I could still trace back through the mails and try and do
something with it. I can't remember what we wanted it for.
jtandy: We were trying to tell people what the choices were.
kerry: Is there more to be done?
jtandy: I think we can close this. if we need more, we'll
create it again.
<Linda> +1
billroberts: There is more info associated with that. But I
think it might be difficult to make a BP from it.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Frans' work?
jtandy: The trick becomes how you would choose which vocab to
use and providing the info to make that choice
phila: isn't that what Frans et al are working on?
roba: I think we have a situation where at the level of the
individual implementation we'll be here forever. Think of
measures vocab - there are many to choose from.
... It's about choosing a vocab that your community of interest
is already using.
<jtandy> [agree with Rob]
<kerry> close action-101
<trackbot> Closed action-101.
<Zakim> Linda, you wanted to suggest if we close action-101, we
can close action-103 as well
<kerry> ack linda?
<jtandy> +1
close action-103
<trackbot> Closed action-103.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about
[27]https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/
[27] https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/
[28]https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/
[28] https://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/
kerry: I'm going to close the meeting there.
... Thanks everyone. And congrats on another publication.
<AndreaPerego> Bye bye
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye
<billroberts> thanks, bye
<kerry> bye!
<frans> bye
<roba> bye
<roba> \quit
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]Last week's minutes accepted
2. [30]That the Editors' Draft of the OWL Time Ontology at
w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ be published as a W3C FPWD and OGC
Discussion Paper
3. [31]Vote of thanks to Simon and Chris
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 14:07:00 UTC