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

Re: [Minutes-BP] 2016-07-13

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:17:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42hssExaNeUr=yjUKm0bYR=EL4poUBoVCN_XOf+E1C7Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello,

A question about the resolution ┬┤*This document is primarily for
developers, both those coming from a geospatial world and those coming from
a Web world┬┤*: What is meant by 'developers'? I hear the term sometimes
being used as short for web application developers. But I can think of many
other types of developer that would be interested in the BP document:

   - desktop application developers
   - smartphone application developers
   - database (RDBMS/triple store/document database/...) developers
   - data analysis tool developers
   - ontology developers
   - web crawler developers
   - API developers
   - dataset developers

Probably I forgot a few other types of developer. So how should
'developers' be understood?

Regards,
Frans

On 13 July 2016 at 17:11, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 14 July 2016 13:17:46 UTC

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