- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:04:00 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
And the final sub group meeting for this week, on Coverages, has its
minutes at https://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-sdwcov-minutes.
Thanks to the team at ANU for being there and being ready to get stuck
in experimenting with CoverageJSON, Data Cube and more. The action items
are around refining the requirements coming from the use cases that we have.
A text snapshot is provided below as per usual.
SDW Coverages Sub Group
09 Mar 2016
[2]Agenda
[2]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20160309
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-sdwcov-irc
Attendees
Present
dmitrybrizhinev, billroberts, sam_t, PhilA, kerry, Duo,
Yadu
Regrets
scott
Chair
Bill
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Patent call
* [6]Summary of Action Items
* [7]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
issue-18?
<trackbot> issue-18 -- Model Reuse -- open
<trackbot> [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18
[8] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18
<billroberts>
[9]https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/
[9] https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/
<billroberts>
[10]https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blo
b/master/spec.md
[10]
https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blob/master/spec.md
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
billroberts: No minutes of the previous meeting to worry about
Patent call
<billroberts>
[11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<kerry> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
billroberts: Main suggestion for today is to try to go over the
scope of the things we're meant to do, set objectives and then
get on with it.
... Maybe a schedule may be too ambitious for today but we can
get some ideas.
<billroberts> [13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter
[13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter
billroberts: Points to the charter's wording related to
coverages.
... In Amersfoort it was clear that we're interested in all
sorts of coverages and subsets.
... In the F2F meeting we starting to home in on the
CoverageJSON work from Uni Reading as a good starting point
... We shoujld probabyl check that people think that's a good
idea.
... And what our requiremetns are for a Recommendation - what
does it need to do to satisfy the WG, making it Webby enough.
... So, comments welcome
kerry: I'm afraid I wasn't in Amersfoort, and only saw the demo
from a distance. I would like to push a bit harder to get he
RDF data Cube working with what we do.
... Which may be a query model rather than a delivery model.
... I'm keen not to take Coverage JSON at face value, we should
try to go a little harder to go on the LD route.
... There's something from Munster that had more of a data Cube
flavour to it, but it dealt with smaller sets
... But I don't want to deny that what's being done at Reading
isn't very good.
billroberts: I think Reading have attempted to come up with a
representation that works well with typicl Web tools but it's
not the only possible approach.
... So some way of testing options against criteria would be
good.
... is option A better than option B anad in what respect.
... That might be a difficult thing to do. What makes something
Webby? We can link to it.
<kerry> +q
billroberts: Shoujld be able to request over HTTP. It would be
good if the bits of HTTP like conneg could be used.
... There's an interesting discussion around conneg around max
resolutions, max data size etc.
... And it needs to play nicely with other common Web
approaches.
... That's what makes it suitable for being on the Web, but
that's not a very retsrictive set.
... But UI'd be happy to have a strand that looks into the
CoverageJSON work and one that looks at QB, or an evolution of
it.
... Especially when it comes to subsetting. I think QB has a
lot of potential on that.
... QB is verbose, so if the coverage is small enough, that
won't matter.
kerry: I agree. We do have a list of well developed ideas about
what makes data more webby in our own BP doc.
... And I think we might be making a rod for our own back if we
try and deliver everything.
... Maybve we just need to point to what we think is most
important, for a start. Good characteristics etc.
->
[14]https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blo
b/master/spec.md Example 1.1
[14]
https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blob/master/spec.md
<billroberts> phila: describes what's in this example. In a few
lines of JSON, it sets out all the domain details
<billroberts> phila: covers multidimensional grids, not (yet)
point clouds
<billroberts> phila: that domain specification could
potentially be defined in RDF, either RDF Data Cube or
something that maps clearly to it
<billroberts> phila: CSVW WG defined how to define metadata for
tabular data that defined how it could be transformed to RDF
<billroberts> phila: some commonality there wtih the things we
have to do
<billroberts> phila: Maik from Reading emphasises that
CoverageJSON is early experimental work
<billroberts> phila: the opportunity to have the ANU team to
look at this in detail and suggest improvements
<billroberts> phila: metadata is easy
<billroberts> phila: providing values within the coverage prob
doesn't make sense as triples, which would be too verbose
<billroberts> phila: but defining the domain in a way that
draws on data cube looks promising
<billroberts> phila: this needs testing, I may well be talking
rubbish
<billroberts> phila: it would be good to investigate if
CoverageJSON and RDF Data Cube can be combined in some way
kerry: That sounds like a good plan. What Chris mentioned in
the last meeting...
... the QB may not be granukar enough. WE need dicing as well
as slicing - which makes sense
... And the other comment was... what do the team here think?
... This is a student project and they get a lot of say in what
they do. It's a fairly open-ended spec
... the spec is to work with the WG and deliver stuff that the
group can use
... The group here is already tied to an infrastructure
environment that they're working with. It's different from what
the Reading is working on.
... and they're working with another OGC spec DGGS
... whichy seems to fit very well.
Duo: Hi... I guess my role as team leader, client application
developer.
... What we've been working on is very rought, just setting up
the raw data that we have and playing around with it.
... So we haven't started looking at what we might use it for,
so we're open to what you'd like us to do with it.
<billroberts> phila: the working group can interpret the
charter as it sees fit. We don't necessarily have to make a
specification
<billroberts> ...there isn't a predefined answer, so it's ok to
follow the directions that come up in the research
billroberts: The basic objective is clear - there is this big
collection of data from satellites etc. that is not being made
best use of in the Web community because it's too difficult
sand if we can make it play more nicely with the Web then
that's good.
... One task that I had from a few weeks ago was to go through
the existing use cases to see how they look fromn the POV of
our coverage work.
-> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr Use Case doc
[15] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr
billroberts: What's harder to tell is whether they are
sufficient. I;m not sure that the translation from the UCs to
the Reqs is helpful enough to head towards a solution.
action-144?
<trackbot> action-144 -- Bill Roberts to Review the use cases
from a coverages point of view -- due 2016-02-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/144
[16] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/144
billroberts: I can document what I came up with and make some
suggestions for refining those requirements. That would be a
starting point, and we have the BPs as a guide too.
phila: Will there be a new version of the UCR?
kerry: Yes. And Frans is expecting the sub groups to come up
with better stuff that needs to be incorporated.
... A more refined description of the requirements.
billroberts: The reqs at the moment are very much at the
summary level. I think we can probably fill those out in a bit
more detail.
... A suggestion - could the ANU team take a look at the UCR
and see how that fits with the AGDC data Cube data
... What kind of applications do you see? etc.
Duo: I think that at this stage, we are still trying to figure
out what you guys are doing. We're also working with Kerry and
Matt from AGDC who might be having different requirements from
the SDW WG.
... We need to work with both teams.
... But it would be good to get clarity on what you want.
kerry: Just to support that. The team is not use case driven.
They're not working with users of the data. Matt does work with
data users though.
... Matt is looking for something that in his work with GDDS
can deliver against the interoperability requiremetn that he
has. He's not imposing abything beyond what this group is
doing, just to be able to use GDDS.
... It really is open ended. Taking the advice from this group
is the way to get maximum impact from the project.
... The team is comfortable with it being very experimental.
... They're well matched for it to be an experimental project.
billroberts: Something I'd find useful, is some good worked
examples of you taking some example satellite data of interest
and showing what are the steps you have to do to get hold of
it, process it, filter it, how it refers to POIs on the ground
etc.
<billroberts> phila: agrees. Running code beats everything.
<billroberts> phila: the Reading work has been a compelling
example because it clearly works and we can see that it takes
satellite data and makes it usable in a browser
<billroberts> phila: would be great to see similar things from
the ANU team
<billroberts> phila: this project is an opportunity for ANU to
demonstrate a lot of impact from their work through involvement
in the group
Duo: I think everyone in the team is super keen. Everyone's
inetersted, especially as it is so open ended.
<kerry> +1 to wiki
billroberts: I propose that we spend time on that stuff around
use cases and requirements. Looking at the BPs in the context
... I'll do that on the wiki in the next couple of days.
... We can use the mailing list to prod people once that's in
existence.
... From there then I guess we want to scope out possible
solutions and check them against the requirements. Maybe Maik
can do that.
... Maybe he can look through that in the context of the
CoverageJSON stuff, might he need to/want to tune his work etc.
... Would you, Kerry, be interested in how the Data Cube might
relate to that?
... Exploring and making some working notes?
kerry: I'd live to say yes but honestly I'm not sure I can
between now and the next meeting.
... (I have SSN stuff to work on etc.)
billroberts: I;m happy to do a little on that. I'll at least
make a QB for Coverages wiki page and see if we can promot
ideas from other people
kerry: I'm intrested and keen on this but I'm not sure how much
I can add given other roles in the WG.
billroberts: A procedural thing...
... Our first milestone is the FPWD. WE have to work out a
draft of what?
... I think I've got what I was hoping to get today...
kerry: A question about turnout - is this going to be it for
the regulat bi weekly meetings?
billroberts: I don't know. Other people have expressed an
interest... Scott was keen. Of course this week is OGC TC week.
Robin was interested.
... Peter Baumann said he definitely wanted to take part.
... The timing of the calls rules out Chinese folks.
... And Maik Riechert we can hope will join the call.
kerry: So we might get a few more people/
... But we do need to have a few more active people in the
group.
... If it's just us, we can possibly come up with a better time
(for Aus and UK). This time is good for the USA as well
billroberts: If they do join then great. If not then we may
look again, especially when the clocks change
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 21:03:53 UTC