- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:06:53 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's BP sub group meeting are at
www.w3.org/2016/03/09-sdwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.
The discussion centred on the narrative
(https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative) suggested originally
by Bart and now under development by many.
Text snapshot below:
SDW BP Sub Group
09 Mar 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160309
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-sdwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
billroberts, phila, Linda, Rachel, MattPerry, eparsons,
AndreaPerego
Regrets
Kerry, Josh, Lars, Scott, Jeremy
Chair
Linda
Scribe
phila, Rachel
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Narrative
2. [6]Merging BPs
3. [7]AOB
* [8]Summary of Action Items
* [9]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<Linda> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Linda: No minutes to approve as it's the first meeting of this
type.
... main agenda. 2 things to do.
... First is to look at the narrative scenario we've been
working on and whether that helps us/drives us to restructure
... Second is to see if we can merge some BPs as we get
comments that they're very detailed.
Narrative
<Rachel> scribe: Rachel
Linda: use the narrative so we can restructure BP
... then revisit the issues not yet addressed
... then add examples
<eparsons> +1 to that approach
Linda: is that clear ?
<billroberts> yes, clear
<Linda> [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative
[11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative
<phila> Linda: Bart vW said he could provide a scenario/real
life use case in the Fire Dept
Linda: at F2F Amersfoort Bart volunteered to write scenario,
real use case
<phila> Linda: He just has an outline so far
<phila> Linda: This is interesting. Multi-disciplinary is
normal for flooding cases.
<phila> Linda: Talks around Bart's 5 points:
<phila> A flooding scenario has a lot of angles which are
interesting to our work:
<phila> Multidisciplinary, there are multiple official agencies
involved in dealing with these scenario's
<phila> Multilingual ( at least in the European context this is
of great interest )
<phila> The data around this scenario needs to be findable,
indexable on the web
<phila> the data should be communicated in a way that 'mortals'
can use the spatial component of it.
<phila> data created by mortals should be usable by official
entities
<phila> Linda: And then discussed the text a little more:
<phila> During high water season both water boards and
meteorological services monitor the levels of water and
precipitation to indicate potential risks. If the worst case
scenario combinations occur these agencies start dispatching
their people to the field to monitor the real situation of
dikes and dams. The people are dispatched to specific
locations. when reporting they will need to report the
situation on the specified location but also everything they
have encounter
<phila> ed on the way there.
<phila> In the mean time on various social media sources
civilians will start reporting unusual situations about the
weather and water level. The location information in these
reports is not as exact as that of the official agencies.
<phila> The agencies will communicate the actual status of the
various water works through official channels, but with their
own jargon. combining all the sources to create a overall
picture needs alignment and understanding of the terminology
used.
<eparsons> Nice link to opendata a bonus
<phila> Linda: I've used this story to combine it with our BPs
<phila> eparsons: I really like this approach, I think it will
work very well. What's the process you'd like us to follow to
help to fill it out?
<phila> scribe: Payam
<phila> scribe phila
<phila> scribe: phila
eparsons: We could volunteer to take parts of the story each.
... It's the linking to the BPs that is probably the hardest
<Payam> eparsons: we can decide who is going to deal with which
part of the BP (story)
Rachel: You could divide the story up by the participants in
the story
<Payam> Rachel: different points of views (e.g. citizen view on
social media)
Rachel: So take the POV of citizens posting on social media
etc.
<Payam> phila: is worried about use-cases; forcing to change
narratives to fit the BPs; is there a room for multiple
narratives or one narrative would be enough
phila: Wonders whether one narrative is enough?
Linda: We thought we could probably fit all the BPs into this
one story.
... If that turns out not to be the case, I'd try to expand it
so that it does fit, but we don't want it to be far fetched.
... We could have multiple stories as long as people write
them. I don't think the editors have enough time to write more.
Rachel: Does this have to be a real use case, with real data,
or can we make up some of it.
Linda: As long as it fits the story, and is not too strange,
then OK to invent some of it to tell the story.
<Payam> +q
Payam: I'm wondering if we can ask people to volunteer
examples. Otehrs may have better examples for a part of the
narrative.
... If we have any items left then we can assign them.
Linda: I don't mean assign, I don't want to tell people, I'm
hoping that people will come forward because they have
experience or examples.
Payam: We should give people a deadaline to work towards. e.g.
you have a week to offer to write an example. After that we
start making assignments
<Payam> yes
Linda: So you're saying that we can divide the BPs, so I vol
for BP1 and look for where it fits in the story and then write
an example for that.
<Payam> multiple stories for one BP should be also fine
Payam: Yes
eparsons: I think I agree with tha approach. I was going to
volunteer to handel the organisational publishing - BP6, 6.2, 7
- that part of the narrative.
... That looks like the way to break it up. Different people
tend to be responsible for different areas. Easier to take a
specific role.
... Might be a number of times where the same BP is used in the
story. So make it role based, not BP-based.
Rachel: If we do it per actor, then if we see BPs always coming
up in pairs together that would give us evidence to merge some.
Linda: I'm seeing an order. First we get the story straight,
get the BPs fixed and then we can see where we can merge.
... So we might want to do the structuring first, before
thinking about merging.
eparsons: Yes, as actors we might see the BPs that come up more
frequently.
... So we can make good use of time by looking at the actors
and who might be involved. I think, for example, that the app
developer is missing from the story at the moment
(PhilA gently cries and hopes eparsons means Web developer)
<Payam> +q
<eparsons> app are just facades to the web
<eparsons> :-)
Rachel: People may want to pick out old images and historical
data.
Payam: I like the idea of actors as we can therefore voice what
they benefit from following the BP, or by others following
those BPs.
... The 2nd thing I wanted to say, we have written lots of
smart cities stories. We asked for volunteers and in the end we
assigned ones to people who hadn't vounteered.
<eparsons> A sign of intelligence - thinking before speaking
Rachel: At BGS we have experience of giving out info on ground
water flooding. We had to respond under emergency circumstances
outside the normal licence conditions so I can help from that
angle.
Linda: So we have the professional publisher actor, other orgs
using this professional data, citizens using social media,
developers,
... journalists
... emergecny responders
... citizens who are in danger of being floodced
<Payam> +q
<Payam> [12]http://www.ict-citypulse.eu/scenarios/scenario/2
[12] http://www.ict-citypulse.eu/scenarios/scenario/2
Linda: They seem the most obvious to me
Payam: The URl above is an example of what we did before in
this space. We had differnet actors and were able to say why
th4e BPs were beneficial.
Linda: These are prtty short narratives. The flooding one is
one that can be apparent throughout the doc.
eparsons: I agree. I think we have to spend the first part of
the doc literally telling a story. Perhaps the flood event as
it happens over a period of time.
... Your initial in, is the story, where the BPs are being
used, then further on you get more detail.
... I think there will be a couple of pages just telling the
story
Linda: That's what I was thinking as well. Have this as a main
story and having hter BPs embedded in that and then fleshed
out.
... Not sure if we need a separate part of the doc that has the
BPs in more detail
eparsons: I'm thinking that some parts of the doc need to be
more normative, especially if we're linking out to stuff. I
think there is a requirement for a reference by reference
approach.
... If you know what the problem is, you can go straight to the
BP that's relevant to you.
Rachel: Just wondering how we're going to handle things like
the 5 star system. How will we include in the narrative that 1
star is useful, for example.
... So for social media, it's helpful to geotag your tweets and
images nut most people don't.
... Do we deal with real life where people don't follow BPs.
eparsons: I'd say that within the narrative, we have an element
of fiction. One of the water boards is publishing its data in
geoJSON with an open lcience and say somewhere that is is
better than a PDF or a paper map in a draw.
... It's the BP *because* it's not doing X
... We had 20K tweets but because they weern't geocoded or bady
geocoded we couldn't use them.
Linda: Maybe in some cases you could give examples of
publishing something with 1 star or 2 stars but it would have
been better with more stars as we could havae done Y.
<Rachel> +1 to Ed's approach
Linda: I think we only need to review the story as we have it
now. I think everyone should review it and see which actor you
would like to write about.
... And then next week we can come back to this and see who
wants to do what or who has already done something.
eparsons: Will Bart be on the call next week?
... I think that would be very helpful as the domain expert.
Linda: Don't know at the moment. He's on his annual ski trip in
Switzerland at the moment so he's reachable but may not be well
connected. I;ll ask
eparsons: In the meantime, why don't we add whatever we can,
maybe add in other actors as appropriate. And then get Bart's
input.
Linda: I'll get in touch with bart and see if he can be on the
call next week. if not can he comment already.
... next week is a joint call with the whole WG.
eparsons: Yep.
<eparsons> +1
<Rachel> yes
<billroberts> yes
Linda: Is everyone fine with working on the wiki for this?
... So I propose we use that wiki page and everyone can edit as
they see fit. I will add the actors from these minutes that I
was summing up earlier.
<eparsons> Great !!
<Rachel> ok!
Merging BPs
Linda: We had some comments on the BPs in the WD. The BPs were
seen as too detailed. They wanted a more high level approach.
<Linda> [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
Linda: The first BPs in section 5.1
... First one is use globally unique HTTP IDs
... 2nd is to reuse existing IDs when available.
... Third one on URIs again.
... Then things that change over time
... Those first 4 could perhaps be merged to one on creating
identifiers.
... They could be described in a possible approach to
implementation
<eparsons> +1
Linda: That's the kind of line we're thinking along here.
<Rachel> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<billroberts> +1 that sounds like a good idea tome
<eparsons> Dont think its that big a problem actually
phila: You need to know if you have passed a BP or not. That
encourages small BPs
eparsons: The BPs we have appear complex because they're out of
context
... When we build the narrative, I think that will become
clearer.
... I think this is the resukt of sharing hte WD so early
Linda: I think it's good that we're not trying to merge yet. It
may turn out that we need some grouping but I think it's good
that we're starting with the scenario.
... But I want you to have this in the back of your minds.
AOB
Linda: Anything else?
[crickets]
<eparsons> Linda sounds like a steam engine
<billroberts> nothing more from me
Linda: Wraps up. Please review the narrative as we have it now.
think about the actors we have and what you might be able to
contribute.
<eparsons> thanks everyone - thanks scribe phil !
Linda: Thanks for attending. next week we have a call at the
normal time (20:00 UTC)
<billroberts> ok thanks
<Payam> thank you
<eparsons> bye !
<Linda> bye
<Payam> bye
<billroberts> bye
<Rachel> bye!
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<MattPerry> bye
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 16:06:46 UTC