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

[Minutes-BP] 2016-07-13

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:11:23 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3402e908-ed5c-70c6-4d95-99e4902b1b58@w3.org>
And this week's BP meeting minutes are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-sdwbp-minutes

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

           Spatial Data on the Web, BP sub group Teleconference

13 Jul 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-sdwbp-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ByronCinNZ, jtandy, eparsons, nicky, Payam, Linda, roba,
           MattPerry, BartvanLeeuwen, JoshLieberman, phila

    Regrets
           scottsimmons, frans, clemens, bill

    Chair
           jtandy

    Scribe
           eparsons

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Options for restructuring the BP document
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    Sorry everyone I will need to stay mostly on mute - at PRG
    Airport !!

    <Payam> is the Webx call open? it asks me to wait...

    <Linda> i'm in payam

    <jtandy> payam: the webex is 643 407 318

    <jtandy> ... should be open

    <MattPerry> Hi, could someone please tell me what the webex
    password is?

    <phila> Meeting: SDW BP Sub Group

    <scribe> scribe: eparsons

    jtandy minutes from some time back...

    <Linda> [7]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/15-sdwbp-minutes

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/15-sdwbp-minutes

    jtandy Proposed approve minutes

    <jtandy> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <Nicky> +1

    <phila> +0 absent

    <ByronCinNZ> +0 absent

    Resolved minutes approved

    <roba> +1

    <Payam> +0

    jtandy Patent call

    jtandy moves on to body of agenda

    jtandy 2 main topics

Options for restructuring the BP document

    jtandy BP doc at moment... intro, 30 BP's functionally
    organised - feedback difficult to follow

    jtandy We could follow DWBP structure ? but discuss..

    Linda Looked at feedback - not much on structure

    <Linda>
    [8]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/201
    6Feb/0038.html

       [8] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html

    Linda Order could be improved link above

    linda relationship with DWBP more explicit

    <Linda>
    [9]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/201
    6Feb/0021.html

       [9] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0021.html

    Linda Roba feedback - List Daunting !! Not clear what BP to use
    for any case...

    Linda Which BP is relevant for each use case ?

    <Linda>
    [10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jan/
    0040.html

      [10] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jan/0040.html

    Linda Bill noted overlap between BP's

    Linda Bill BP's sometimes repeated...

    jtandy Any other issues with current structure ?

    jtandy None so moves on...

    jtandy Who do we expect to read ?

    jtandy Is our doc stand alone ?

    jtandy What do we expect people to be able to do ?

    <Payam> +q

    jtandy as a result of reading the BP ?

    <ChrisLittle__> Q

    ByronCinNZ Who is a developer - so extension of DWBP

    ByronCinNZ read on web so links to other docs easy.. structure
    should be the same as much as possible

    ByronCinNZ Current SDW has things whcih should be in DWBP ?

    ByronCinNZ e.g.... Craw-ability

    <ChrisLittle__> S/Craw/Crawl/

    jtandy Devs target audience - so should be able to implement
    stuff ?

    ByronCinNZ - Yes not all normative but provide a pointer

    phila 2 things 1. Extending DWBP great but different community

    <phila> [11]LDG conslusion

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2014/03/lgd/report#conclusion

    phila - therefore some translation might be required ? Ref -
    Report of original workshop "where to pour concrete"

    phila Answer "What should I do question - more prescriptive "

    <Payam> +1 - agree with Phil

    jtandy - Needs to have value over time... can we do this and be
    prescriptive

    phila - Suggestions made is DWBP could be changed - so GeoJOSN
    may have been replaced in 10 years - allow people to make
    change at time

    Payam +1 to phila - will be standalone - common points e.g.
    crawing may not actually be similar in the communities

    ChrisLittle__ Do we say read DWBP first - people will not... If
    standalone needs section that points to DWBP and high light
    where things are different ?

    <Payam> ChrisLittle__ has a good suggestion: to list/summarise
    the DBP and provide links

    ChrisLittle__ Very concise summary of DWBP needed

    JoshLieberman Struggle a bit Spatial should be specialisation..
    however stuff in our community not considered by DWBP

    JoshLieberman Follow DWBP when we can often general principles
    however - SDW needs to be more precise use this specific BP

    jtandy Yes think I follow that - extension is a good term for
    the relationship between them

    roba As dev will have be pointed to this doc

    roba Consider the commissioner or manager of developer need
    more prescription - a business view

    jtandy Business person needs to know this is relevant to my
    domain ?

    roba Yes but with details for developer

    <JoshLieberman> DWBP points at a "data on the web" community.
    SDWBP points in two directions: the spatial data community and
    the data on the web community. It needs to draw each one
    towards the other.

    <ChrisLittle__> Suggest at least following DWBP could be
    'specialised':1,2,4,7,13,14,15,18,23,28

    BartvanLeeuwen Different perspective SDI has solved problems of
    accessibility but not find-ability

    BartvanLeeuwen Semantics of data more than SDI is important and
    not covered by DWBP

    <JoshLieberman> The dw -> sdw perspective can specialize dwbp,
    but the sd ->sdw perspective needs to express dwbp as
    specializations of sd.

    jtandy SDI is not enough ?

    BartvanLeeuwen Craw-able, more semantic content - these are the
    key points

    ChrisLittle__ Worked through BP's and identified ones where
    there is a spatial specialisation

    jtandy I heard doc is mainly for developers, but also need
    business view

    jtandy Point at our one doc - enough to get on with but with
    pointers to other places - can't assume other docs read

    jtandy outcome of reading doc publish SDI to broader web
    community, or publishing new data - not as generalised as DWBP

    <JoshLieberman> sd->sdw bp paradigm: This is how to apply a
    dwbp to spatial data... but this idea of multiple inheritance
    from sd and dw is too rigid for useful sdwbp.

    jtandy We can ref DWBP and in some cases we need to do you
    stuff for an implementer we need examples

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    jtandy Narrative will allow dev to identify a role and find
    appropriate BP's and linked details from there

    <ChrisLittle__> +1

    jtandy New section of examples needed therefore

    <JoshLieberman> It's useful to discuss "realizing" rather than
    "specializing" more general concepts.

    jtandy Useful discussion

    Linda Need a resolution ?

    Linda Need an agreed approach

    phila - Doc should be standalone but not repeat content

    Linda Yes that helps...

    jtandy SDWBP is first entry point - not assumption of prior
    work

    ByronCinNZ strucuure mirrors DWBP helpful for devs

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to caution against numbers

    <JoshLieberman> I would like to see SDWBP to have two entry
    points: 1) for those bringing spatial data to the web and 2)
    for those making data on the web spatial. 2) might benefit from
    a closer relationship to the DWBP, but not 1)

    phila DWBP is at candidate stage - so looking for examples of
    implementation - could be that some may need to be removed

    phila use names therefore not numbers when referencing

    <JoshLieberman> A little surprising that BP's don't have URI's
    ;>)

    BartvanLeeuwen fading in and out on vox

    <BartvanLeeuwen> I'll type

    <BartvanLeeuwen> Nicky and I prepared a demo for the plenary,
    but its a bout a proposed BP

    <BartvanLeeuwen> should it be in the BP call then ?

    jtandy Take at Pleanary call - Agreed say ed

    JoshLieberman Agenda item ?

    JoshLieberman Update to GeoSPARQL as spatial ontology -
    feedback useful

    JoshLieberman We write OGC charter but need feedback from this
    group

    jtandy Both items add to plenary call

    jtandy JoshLieberman 2 entry points good idea

    <jtandy> PROPOSAL: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a
    standalone doc, although it will refer to more detail in other
    docs

    <phila> PROPOSAL: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a first
    entry point, although it will refer to more detail in other
    docs

    +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <phila> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <roba_> +1

    <JoshLieberman> +1

    <ChrisLittle__> +1

    RESOLUTION: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a first entry
    point, although it will refer to more detail in other docs

    <phila> PROPOSAL: This document is primarily for developers

    +1

    <phila> PROPOSAL: This document is primarily for developers,
    both those coming from a geospatial world and those coming from
    a Web world

    <jtandy> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <ChrisLittle__> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <phila> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <JoshLieberman> +1

    RESOLUTION: This document is primarily for developers, both
    those coming from a geospatial world and those coming from a
    Web world

    <phila> PROPOSED: Our examples will be necessarily prescriptive

    <phila> PROPOSED: Our possible approaches to implementation
    will be necessarily prescriptive

    <JoshLieberman> with regard to vocabulary and format and ...?

    <jtandy> +!

    <jtandy> +1

    <Payam> +1

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <JoshLieberman> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <roba_> +1

    <ChrisLittle__> +1

    RESOLUTION: Our possible approaches to implementation will be
    necessarily prescriptive

    <jtandy>
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_consolidation_propo
    sal

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

    jtandy - Second item ..

    jtandy Discuss proposal on email - brutal consolidation !!

    jtandy - Thanks everyone !!

    <BartvanLeeuwen> thx guys

    <JoshLieberman> bye+

    <BartvanLeeuwen> jtandy: saw my gmail mail ?

    thanks everone

    <jtandy> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [13]The BP doc will be undertsandable as a first entry
        point, although it will refer to more detail in other docs
     2. [14]This document is primarily for developers, both those
        coming from a geospatial world and those coming from a Web
        world
     3. [15]Our possible approaches to implementation will be
        necessarily prescriptive

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 15:10:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC