W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2016

[Minutes] 2016-03-16 and some notes on scribing

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:01:02 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56EA805E.7050107@w3.org>
With apologies for the slight delay in doing this, the minutes of this 
week's joint meeting are at https://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-minutes

A plea from me...

Can either the scribe or chair please include topic lines, i.e.

Topic: SSN
Blah blah
...

Topic: Time
Blah blah
...


That then creates a handy table of contents with frag IDs for those 
items in the minutes.

Resolutions *should* automatically get IDs for future reference (which 
is why you need to write "RESOLUTION: whatever was decided")

You can add a little ID to the minutes at any point by typing:

RRSAgent, pointer?

It puts in a timestamp as an ID on the HTML paragraph.

Thanks.

This week's minutes are pasted below (incidentally, you can get the 
plain text version of any HTML page on w3.org by appending ',txt' to the 
URL).




           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

16 Mar 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160316

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           eparsons, robin, BartvanLeeuwen, ClausStadler,
           DanhLePhuoc, frans, joshlieberman, billroberts, jtandy,
           kerry, Linda, ahaller2, AndreaPerego, MattPerry

    Regrets
           Raúl, PhilA, Clemens, Scott, ChrisL, Rachel, Lars,
           Scott, Lewis, Maik, Andreas

    Chair
           eparsons

    Scribe
           Jeremy Tandy, eparsons

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]approval of minutes
          2. [6]sub-group meetings
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: Jeremy Tandy

    <scribe> scribenick: jtandy

approval of minutes

    <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

    <frans> Thank you Jeremy

    eparsons: last weeks minutes were two weeks ago

    <eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

    <eparsons> [7]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-sdw-minutes.html

   http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-sdw-minutes.html

    +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <ClausStadler> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

    <KJanowicz> +1

    <joshlieberman> +!

    <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

    <frans> +0 (I was not there)

    <eparsons> [8]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

       [8] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

    <robin> +0

    eparsons: lovely jubbly [he's from London]

    <ClausStadler> +0

    <eparsons> Topic : Sub-group meeting reports & Feedback

    [hearing nothing]

sub-group meetings

    eparsons: best approach is to take reports from the various
    subteams
    ... then we can have a conversation to see what worked
    ... we can aim to improve things if need be

    <eparsons> SSN subgroup

    eparsons: first report back is from kerry

    kerry: spent a while with the mechanics ... not straight
    forward but hopefully fixed for next time
    ... trouble using the tracker
    ... didn't have a good show of numbers
    ... perhaps because of the technical problems
    ... we talked about protege - how to use
    ... not very productive but useful
    ... talked about modularisation

    <joshlieberman> The OGC TC meeting last week caused problems
    with attending the subgroup meetings.

    kerry: should have put this in the tracker; not a clear idea of
    how many modules there should be
    ... should the FPWD have modules even?
    ... that's about it
    ... we did some summary of the datacube stuff

    <KJanowicz> but I got it right now :-)

    kerry: difficult to make decisions with so few attendees

    <eparsons> Coverage subgroup

    kerry: hopefully we'll get more next time

    eparsons: lets talk about numbers/attendance later
    ... next is coverages

    billroberts: we also had few attendees
    ... although kerry brought along a number of students who
    wanted to do some research projects in this area
    ... would like more attendees please
    ... good news: Maik Reicherdt (?) from Reading University has
    agreed to participate
    ... we had a good discussion about CoverageJSON [ref please!]
    ... we talked about picking criteria for evaluating these
    solutions
    ... main part of the meeting about setting up wiki page etc.
    for capturing these criteria
    ... mainly: would like more people involved!

    <eparsons> SDW Best Practices

    eparsons: thanks billroberts
    ... that's a good level of details

    <billroberts> @jtandy reference on CoverageJSON:
    [9]https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blob
    /master/spec.md

       [9] 
https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blob/master/spec.md

    eparsons: next is BP ... Linda please

    Linda: what we did was to explain the next step for the best
    practice

    <Linda> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative

    Linda: to explain the narrative/scenario that BartvanLeeuwen
    has been developing for us
    ... we developed a list of actors who will be participating in
    the scenario
    ... we agreed to split the work based on actor
    ... so the main decision for the group was deciding who does
    what in the group

    <eparsons> sorry having audio issues will need to reconnect

    Linda: each person will try to develop examples and flesh out
    what needs to be done
    ... we need BartvanLeeuwen to give some more details of the
    scenario - because he knows the subject matter better

    <eparsons> I'm back !

    Linda: we also talked about possibilities of merging some of
    the best practices

    <joshlieberman> Another source of detail for a flooding
    narrative can be the scenario for OGC Testbed 11.

    Linda: but first we will working on the narrative & restructure
    the BPs accordingly

    eparsons: so attendance is a common issue
    ... I'm not too concerned about the numbers
    ... so long as the work is sustainable

    Linda: joshlieberman already pointed out that low attendance
    may have been due to the OGC TC meeting happening in parallel

    billroberts: the key issue for me is to make sure that there
    are enough people's opinions represented

    <KJanowicz> Time changes are sometimes very difficult to handle
    for many of us.

    billroberts: don't want to do lots of work and _then_ to find
    out that the majority don't agree

    eparsons: fair enough- but these groups are largely self
    selecting
    ... so if they are interested in a topic they _will_ be there

    <joshlieberman> Small amounts of work followed by review would
    help with getting away from consensus.

    frans: can we recruit people from other communities?

    <KJanowicz> I would not suggest to do so

    <KJanowicz> The group is already pretty big and diverse

    frans: e.g. from specialist groups like time or SSN

    eparsons: trouble is that they need to be part of the overall
    group

    kerry: there are a few people who told me that they will come
    to the subgroup meetings not the main meeting
    ... let's run a bit longer before we change
    ... also concerned that we need sufficient participation
    ... please in the subgroups can we be especially careful about
    recoding minutes / actions / etc. in the minutes so that people
    can
    ... follow the subgroup meetings whilst not actually
    participating
    ... if we capture those resolutions, we may be able to get
    people to comment _before_ too much work is done

    eparsons: agreed ... we need to be following this process
    ... reporting back to the main group as an "FYI"
    ... only if there is a _huge_ problem should the decisions of
    subgroups be challenged

    joshlieberman: raises both the participation and consensus
    issue
    ... the geosemantics DWG in OGC demonstrated that the work of
    this group is not very visible in OGC
    ... there are a lot of people in the OGC who are interested in
    JSON, Linked Data etc.
    ... but many people just think "oh - it's those geosemantics
    wonks"
    ... perhaps we can use the subgroups to capture information for
    wider sharing in OGC

    <KJanowicz> Josh: this is one of the reasons why we are doing
    the SDW16 workshop as well

    joshlieberman: need to clarify with Denise McK about the best
    way to do this

    eparsons: so is the issue that the connection is _only_ via the
    geosemantics group

    joshlieberman: no - I think that connection is fine ...
    ... but we need wider communication

    <frans> Do we have enough public exposure on the W3C side?

    joshlieberman: for example, talking to the Architecture Board
    or reporting to the TC plenary or doing a frequent blog post
    ... and as frans says, making sure that we address concerns
    from W3C groups too

    <eparsons> action joshlieberman to talk to OGC about the
    appropriate forum to report back

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Talk to ogc about the
    appropriate forum to report back [on Joshua Lieberman - due
    2016-03-23].

    eparsons: we rely on @phila to put things in the W3C context

    KJanowicz: wants to highlight two things

    <joshlieberman> echo coming from you Ed.

    KJanowicz: i) we have enough people in the core group
    ... what we need is more outreach
    ... we need to invite others to review our work
    ... ii) because this is a long standing group, we have to cope
    with day light savings times

    <frans> More rounds of inviting public comments are needed
    perhaps? So more draft versions of deliverables?

    KJanowicz: just one hour change causes me problems because it
    clashes with teaching periods

    <KJanowicz> yes sub-groups will make timing less of a problem

    eparsons: KJanowicz - will the subgroups help the timing issues

    <kerry> it does not help when there are Aussies involved....

    eparsons: because we can target the right time for the
    participants

    BartvanLeeuwen: one of the things I saw in another WG
    ... where issues are closed in subgroups
    ... we provide a brief overview of the subgroup issues [back to
    the main group]
    ... this is a courtesy to those who do not have the time to
    follow everything

    <kerry> +1 to Bart's suggestion, but we cannot spend all the
    core meeting just reporting back -- we need to do work there
    too!

    eparsons: [not sure] but it's probably too early to tell

    <joshlieberman> It did not take me long to review the minutes
    from the subgroup meetings I missed, but detail and
    organization will be even more important in using them to keep
    up going forward.

    eparsons: agree with the points made
    ... most important thing is to keep making progress on the
    deliverables
    ... after a month or so if we're not making progress
    ... then we shoudl review
    ... asking the subgroup leaders if they want to try anything
    drastically different

    jtandy: stick with it for a couple more iterations

    Linda: wondering then what do we do in this full group meeting
    ... is it just reporting back or are we going to try to do
    other things?

    eparsons: good question
    ... we _will_ have to report back to make sure that everyone is
    aware of what is happening
    ... I also expect that the subgroup leaders will identify
    issues that need broader discussions
    ... the primary goal for the main group will be to report back
    ... it may even be necessary to have subgroup meetings in
    _this_ week too
    ... interested to hear what you think

    <frans> I would expect some overarching issues will come up in
    the subgroups

    kerry: I think we can't afford _not_ to be working in these
    groups
    ... if we don't deal issues [missing]
    ... [returns ... but dropped out audio]
    ... we need to make sure we are doing work here too

    eparsons: agreed ... most of the topics coming [for discussion
    in the main group] will be coming from the subgroups

    kerry: agreed - subgroups should be nominating topics that
    require broader conversation
    ... for the most part it's been eparsons and I that have been
    nominating topics for the meeting
    ... I think this can continue

    frans: a while back we had topic of technology talks
    ... perhaps this is also something we can make time for

    <kerry> +1 tech talks -- especially on best practice exemplars
    -- this is good for the main group

    eparsons: this is true - and probably appropriate for the BP
    group mostly
    ... but also tech talks would be pertinent for the sub-groups
    too
    ... because we're all involved in the subgroups
    ... we can collectively monitor what's going on
    ... but we don't want to loose the opportunity to work together
    ... ok - so we'll carry on with the subgroups
    ... can group leaders remember to communicate well ahead of
    time

    <eparsons> Topic : Timing of calls during the Summer

    eparsons: if there's nothing more about the subgroups, let's
    move onto the next topic

    <kerry>
    [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SD
    WWG+Call&iso=20160406T13&ah=1

      [11] 
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20160406T13&ah=1

    eparsons: we need to pick a new time
    ... we need to pick a good time for all of us

    kerry: reminds that US and Europe in one direction, and
    Australia moves the other way ... so we get a two week change
    ... last time we postponed until the Aus time change
    ... in early April
    ... please- let's change _only_ once!!
    ... we're talking about only the main meeting
    ... but notes that SSN and Coverages are also in the same slot
    ... [summary: no one is happy all the time!]

    kerry proposes 1pm UTC as the best slot

    <KJanowicz> So, 6am PDT?

    <MattPerry> Yes. 9am EDT

    kerry: repeats - not a friendly time for US or Aus

    <KJanowicz> Would 2pm UTC work?

    eparsons: ok for Europe; lunchtime

    <KJanowicz> yes :-)

    <KJanowicz> 1:30pm UTC?

    eparsons: asks KJanowicz is 6am is too early

    KJanowicz: yes

    eparsons: but if we go later this is problem for Aus
    ... does 30 mins make a big difference

    billroberts: middle of the day UK time is fine [!]
    ... other possibility is 6am UTC

    <joshlieberman> 6am UTC is 2am eastern US -- sketchy

    billroberts: [summarises the times in other timezones]

    eparsons: this is only for the main meeting

    <kerry> +q

    eparsons: the other meetings can pick accordingly
    ... happy with 13:00 utc

    <joshlieberman> +1

    eparsons: unless there are any objectives

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    kerry: looking at the subgroups, only the BP has a strong
    european dominance

    <KJanowicz> But for the SSN subgroups we have a good eeting
    time, right?

    kerry: all the others are constrained to this time slot as we
    need Australian input

    eparsons: so are we in a position to move to 13:00utc on April
    6?

    [very quiet]

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    eparsons: speak now ...

    <billroberts> +1

    <frans> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    +1

    <Linda> +1

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <KJanowicz> -1

    <ClausStadler> +1

    <DanhLePhuoc> +1

    eparsons: ok - done

    <KJanowicz> np

    <KJanowicz> thx ;-)

    <frans> I would not mind a half hour sooner or later

    kerry: for KJanowicz the SSN is particularly important
    ... we could reconsider

    KJanowicz: ok- for the main meeting it is only once every two
    weeks ... I'll try to make this

    <KJanowicz> As long as I can do the SSN dates, I am 'happy'
    with 6am for the Wed meetings

    <eparsons> scribe: eparsons

    jtandy: how to bring geosparql and geojson people together
    ... does not work on web so geojson people will never like

    <KJanowicz> you mean in a geosparql geometry statement?

    jtandy: therefore allow json as a literal

    <joshlieberman> GeoJSON geometry is specific to JSON - not
    applicable either to XML, text, or RDF.

    jtandy: Off the wall idea ?

    <joshlieberman> Can define transformations, but each doesn't
    work well in the other encodings.

    <frans> I think it is a very good idea to start comparing
    solutions for encoding geometry

    <ClausStadler> i ithink this would rather lead to a sparql
    extension for native json support (so its not geosparql
    specific)

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say that this what we are
    doing in GeoDCAT-AP

    AndreaPerego: geodcat-ap has similar issue for geometry
    encoding
    ... Allow encoding choice
    ... Geojson appears in a number of use cases
    ... Also, GML, KML etc
    ... recommends > one encoding

    <ClausStadler> Select * { ?s ?p ?o .
    Filter(geosparql:st_instersect(geojson:geometryOf(?o), ...) } #
    introduce a new function that extracts a geometry from a
    (geo)json literal. DBMS could provide functional indexes

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

    <KJanowicz> bye bye

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <Linda> bye

    <billroberts> thanks, bye

    <BartvanLeeuwen> bye

    <jtandy> [noting that joshlieberman said geojson & json &
    json-ld is happening in testbed OWS 12]

    <frans> live long and prosper!

    <jtandy> ciao

    <kerry> bye!

    <MattPerry> bye
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 10:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:20 UTC