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