- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:07:57 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's plenary meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes with the text snapshot below.
Thanks to Rob for scribing!
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
08 Jun 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160608
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
frans, nicky, ByronConNZ, eparsons, billroberts, kerry,
ClausStadler, roba, ahaller2, jonblower, BartvanLeeuwen,
AndreaPerego, jtandy, joshli, phila
Regrets
Rachel, Lars, Simon, Linda, Matt, payam, Scott
Chair
kerry
Scribe
robatkinson
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]ISSUE-18 model reuse and ISSUE-19 Multiple types of
coverage and Related actions (ACTION-114 and
ACTION-115)
2. [6]ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems
3. [7]F2F meeting plan
4. [8]UCR completion
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kerry> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 08 June 2016
<ClausStadler> hi, what's this call's webex password?
ok
<kerry> scribe: robatkinson
<kerry> *
<kerry> scribeNick; roba
<kerry> approve minutes
[11]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes.html
<eparsons> +1
<kerry> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<billroberts> +1
<frans> +1
<ClausStadler> +0
RESOLUTION: approved minutes
patent call..
<kerry> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
patent call
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
ISSUE-18 model reuse and ISSUE-19 Multiple types of coverage and
Related actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115)
<kerry> [13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18
[13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18
<frans>
[14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html#ModelReuse
[14]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse
frans references discussion on list - asks if resolution
billroberts - not resolved - passed back to plenary
kerry - reports coverage consensus not a requirement - a good
practice
<kerry> Propose: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a
Requirement from UCR
<billroberts> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<frans> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ClausStadler> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a
Requirement from UCR
<kerry> [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19
ISSUE 19
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19
<frans> Issue 19 is about this requirement:
[16]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage
[16]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage
frans: requirement is not clear - ask bill for report from
coverage sub-group
<phila> issue-19?
<trackbot> issue-19 -- Multiple types of coverage requirement
-- open
<trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19
billroberts: agreed we should not try to be comprehensive -
concentrate on common cases
... regular gridded coverages as the most common type
... not sure how this addresses requirement in UCR
... prioritise simplicity over completeness
<frans> Current requirement text: ¨It should be possible to
represent many different types of coverage. For instance, to
classify coverage data by grid complexity: GridCoverage (GML
3.2.1), RectifiedGridCoverage, ReferenceableGridCoverage, etc.¨
<kerry> roba: part of discussion was that if we were to focus
on a common case we do not want to close of capability to allow
description of more general cases e.g. point cloud where
gridded may be a degenerate case
<kerry> ...some middle ground between all types and only simple
ones.
<kerry> ...leave some room for describing more complex cases
without interfering with simple cases
<phila> close issue-18
<trackbot> Closed issue-18.
jtandy: interested in environmental data - important not to
fall over ourselves achiveing simple grids - lots of other
coverages - timeseries and profiles
,,, not trying to be comprehensive is appropriate - but at
least one example of a non-grid coverage
<phila> chair: kerry
jonblower: what does it mean to support different types of cov:
RDF encoding or conceptual model?
<frans> ys, that is the question: what is meant?
frans: that is the question - UCR can be interpreted either
way,
jonblower: endorses jtandy suggestion
billroberts: agrees extensible but not a concrete
implementation for all, grid + 1 other at least to be
elucidated
<jtandy> "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we
cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage ... which means we
need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded
so that software knows how to behave etc.
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest that "support for
multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d]
raster type coverage
billroberts: coverage WG members invited to suggest other type
kerry: we do have UC...
<frans> The question which coverage types should be supported
is not the same as the question how the requirement should be
understood
jtandy: makes proposal
<jtandy> +1 to jonblower about gridded coverage and timeseries
(at single point) as priority coverage types to examine
.jonblower: pointclouds most complex, suggests timeseries as
priority
<ChrisLittle> +1
<Kerry_> which means we need to be able identify what type of
coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave
etc.
<jtandy> +1
+1
<frans> +1
<eparsons> +1
<Kerry_> +1
<billroberts> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<RaulGarciaCastro> +1
<ClausStadler> +1
<frans> This effectively resolves the issue, I think
<jtandy> ... and that we will prioritise gridded coverage and
timeseries in the examples
<jtandy> I think that's a comment for the editors
<frans> +1 to bill
<jonblower> +1 to bill
RESOLUTION: reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what
type of coverage is being encoded "
<Kerry_> action-114?
<trackbot> action-114 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR
ISSUE-18 -- due 2015-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/114
[18] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/114
<scribe> ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Reword issue 19 [on Frans
Knibbe - due 2016-06-15].
<Kerry_> close action-114
<trackbot> Closed action-114.
<Kerry_> action-115?
<trackbot> action-115 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR
ISSUE-19 -- due 2016-03-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/115
[20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/115
<Kerry_> close action-115
<trackbot> Closed action-115.
<eparsons> close issue-19
<trackbot> Closed issue-19.
ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems
<phila> issue-32?
<trackbot> issue-32 -- Clarification required on requirement
about Independence on reference systems -- open
<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32
[21] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32
frans: possible duplicate requirement identified - due to
multiple teams working in parallel
<Kerry_> +1
<frans>
[22]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems
[22]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems
<frans>
ttp://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.htm
l#NonGeographicReferenceSystem
[23]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem
[23]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem
<Kerry_> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: merge requirements
<Kerry_> close issue-32
<trackbot> Closed issue-32.
<scribe> ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Update ucr [on Frans Knibbe -
due 2016-06-15].
<jtandy> /me - don't we need to have a "proposed" before we
"resolve"?
F2F meeting plan
kerry: getting close to critcal timing
... deliverables - SSN in FPWD, UCR needs closing off soon,
issues waiting on other deliverables
... time - work done, no meeting - schedule FPWD soon
<jonblower> sorry, got to leave now. bye all
kerry: coverage - a way off
<jtandy> just FPWD
kerry: BP - at FPWD - "deserves another release"
... should publish updates before F2F meeting
<jtandy> [sorry - feeling dumb ... are we talking about OGC TC
dublin or W3C TPAC lisbon?]
kerry: at F2F SSN memebers present, Time not so..
<jtandy> ah!
<jtandy> then I can agree to another release :-)
kerry: not official F2F at dublin, josh confirms
<Kerry_>
[25]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_
Lisbon
[25] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon
<phila> Our meeting at TPAC is 19-20 Sept
<joshli> Still and issue, unfortunately, that the TPAC overlaps
the OGC meeting in Orlando.
kerry: what to do - close off at F2F ?
eparsons: as evil co-chair would like to see iterations of docs
before TPAC - use TPAC to revise
<frans> UCR can have another iteration too - provided the
remaining issues get enough group attention
jtandy: BP iteration by end July - will check with co-editors -
work not yet reflected. Payam with more time, Linda also
planning to make time
BartvanLeeuwen: has meeting of related project at same time -
does not expect feedback by then
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to drill a little into 'End of July'
BartvanLeeuwen: suspects early September better for attention
than July
phila: asks for "before editors go on holiday to allow time to
review" - Sept is a long time for an update.
... takes time for group to review and consider before formal
publication
<eparsons> And I thought I was evil :-)
<ChrisLittle> * we know you are Ed.
<billroberts> So for the record, aiming for the coverage
workgroup to publish a FPWD soon after TPAC, so have a draft
ready for discussion/finalisation at the TPAC F2F
<ChrisLittle> Time scale for Time noted.
phila: coverages after TPAC, SSN after TPAC - timings to be put
to W3C mgment in next few days to allow extension to June 2017
ChrisLittle: timescale for time deliverable looks feasible -
based on Simon's doc - not tied too closely to ISO
... published by endo of July, Chris/Simon not at F2F
<phila> roba: Some of us, including Chris, will be together on
Friday 24th at the TC in Dublin. I'll be looking at some QB
descriptions of these coverage use cases
<phila> ... Hope to have something to feed in - talk to us in
Dublin.
<billroberts> great, thanks Rob. Sorry, I can't make it to that
Dublin meeting
<phila> ChrisLittle: Talked about Mark Hedley's work on WKT for
non-Gregorian times
<phila> roba: Yep. Spoke to him today
thanks phil
UCR completion
kerry: asks frans: re UCR timing, needs
<ChrisLittle> Sorry folks, I have to leave now. Bye
<ChrisLittle> Bye
frans: asks group to look at open issues
<jtandy> [that's going to be difficult for BP editors as we
must focus on the next release of BP]
<phila> issue-38?
<trackbot> issue-38 -- decide if and how to add the proposed
use case -- open
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38
[26] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38
frans: next iteration well before TPAC
andreaperego: INSPIRE conference after TPAC - opportunity to
show work
<Kerry_> +1
andreaperego: deadline on Friday - abstract only needed - asks
for interest, attending?
<Kerry_> +0
<billroberts> -1
<phila> +0 (no budget :-( )
<BartvanLeeuwen> -1
<frans> I do hope SDDWG will get lots of exposure at the
INSPIRE conference
<jtandy> probably -1
<AndreaPerego> :(
<joshli> joshli -- expect to put a spatial ontology proposal
(update of GeoSPARQL) on WebProtege tomorrow.
<ByronCinNZ> Maybe +.5
<eparsons> +0.5
+0
<RaulGarciaCastro> -1
<frans> Great news josh!
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye
<billroberts> thanks, bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<eparsons> thanks bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01
[28] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]approved minutes
2. [30]ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement
from UCR
3. [31]reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type
of coverage is being encoded "
4. [32]merge requirements
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:07:55 UTC