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

Hi Frans,

I think most of the developer types you mention below are part of our target audience. Maybe database / desktop application developers not so much. But our resolution was using the term ‘developer’ more as opposed to advisors, or consultants, or managers, etc.

Linda

Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Verzonden: donderdag 14 juli 2016 15:17
Aan: Phil Archer
CC: SDW WG Public List
Onderwerp: Re: [Minutes-BP] 2016-07-13

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<mailto: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]
     __________________________________________________________