- From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 23:07:57 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfF9Lyaq6=7LP4L-guPm9FLarFMpebRdhs+X=2CyeK1Q8ymoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi folks
read with interest the debates and discussions - have a comment which I
think is highly relevant to both your sanity and the end product...
the whole point about terminology (in all the different guises) is that
machines (and developers) need precise terminology so things match, and
users will have varied levels of initial context allowing them to know or
understand that context. There is a theory of cognitive development known
as the Zone of Proximal Development - Vergotsky - all about what it takes
for a real person to cross the divide from what they know already to what
they can learn (or are seeking).
IMHO its a first-class concern of the BP to take this on board as part of
the architecture. So instead of dumbing down the language we should use the
precise term used in the domain, and include the step of the user
discovering this is what they actually need. Without this we keep reverting
to free-for-all in the terminology space - and the mappings and mechanisms
needed by the end user failing to materialise. The good news is you dont
need to manage two copies of the narrative :-)
Of course - you could argue that this is missing but needed practice - and
Best is still borked - and a solution is therefore out of scope. Being
honest about it though you still put the step in there and admit it takes
'magic, blood, sweat, tears and lots of time to do a bad job of this step'
- and having just watched a bunch of students try to access SDI to get
some data for a scenario, i may be exaggerating about the blood, a little.
Hope this is useful
Cheers
Rob Atkinson
On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 07:24 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> The BP Sub Group had a long extra meeting, the minutes of which are at
> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.
> This meeting is in addition to, not instead of, the meeting on 4th May.
>
> A text snapshot of the 3 May meeting minutes if provided below.
>
>
> Spatial Data on the Web WG, BP VM
>
> 03 May 2016
>
> [2]Agenda
>
> [2]
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016#Dial-in_details
>
> See also: [3]IRC log
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-irc
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> jtandy, Linda, ClemensPortele, AndreaPerego, /, -
>
> Regrets
> Chair
> jtandy
>
> Scribe
> jtandy, Clemens Portele, Linda van den Brink
>
> Contents
>
> * [4]Topics
> 1. [5]Patent Call
> 2. [6]Check agenda
> * [7]Summary of Action Items
> * [8]Summary of Resolutions
> __________________________________________________________
>
> <jtandy> Agenda is at:
> [9]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016#M
> ain_agenda_.28DRAFT.29
>
> [9]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016#Main_agenda_.28DRAFT.29
>
> <jtandy> Looks like the Goto meeting is started ...
>
> <jtandy> scribe: jtandy
>
> <scribe> scribe: Clemens Portele
>
> <scribe> scribenick: ClemensPortele
>
> Patent Call
>
> Check agenda
>
> <jtandy>
> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016
>
> [10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016
>
> jtandy: will not be able to work through all of this
> ... Work on spatial ontology will be spin off to a separate
> activity, not this meeting
>
> <jtandy>
> [11]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2
>
> [11] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2
>
> <jtandy> (revised flooding scenario)
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> jtandy: We should go through the narrative and identify where
> we have best practices, recommended practices or gaps
> ... a bit of a challenge to get stuff into the BP document
> ... ... are we writing them from an SDI user/provider
> perspective, from the perspective of someone not familiar with
> SDIs, etc.
> ... anything else for the agenda?
>
> (silence)
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <Payam> +1
>
> The proposed agenda is approved
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> hi
>
> jtandy: may stop the meeting for a while a split into subgroups
>
> <jtandy> original narrative
>
> <jtandy> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative
>
> [12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative
>
> jtandy: questions was "how do people should contribute"?
> Difficult with the first narrative
> ... created second version of the narrative
>
> <jtandy> who has read
> [13]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2
>
> [13] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2
>
> <Linda> -1
>
> -1
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 (but partially)
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> I did find it rather technical
>
> Payam: what do want to achieve today? what can make our day
> productive?
>
> jtandy: ensure that the (currently 9) steps cover everything or
> do we need a different approach. Identify where we can get best
> practices from and who can lead on those?
>
> Payam: Do we go through them one-by-one or do we split?
>
> jtandy: Not sure, need to see. Let's first go through the list
> in the group
> ... overview of narrative 2
> ... ... context at the beginning (no details)
> ... regarding the comment on this being technical, this is
> meant for a technical audience
>
> <jtandy> question: is it right to pose this as a technical best
> practice / scenario
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> <jtandy> I'm hoping that it addresses the needs of the BP
> audience
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 - but shouldn't we have in mind also a
> non-technical audience?
>
> <Payam> +1
>
> <Linda> Bart, could you explain why you found it technical?
>
> <joshlieberman> flooded area?
>
> Linda: maybe avoid domain expert language?
>
> <jtandy> terminology: avoid terms like "inundation extent" in
> favour of "flood extent" or "how far did the water reach"
>
> Payam: maybe create two versions of the same story, one more
> technical and one less technical?
> ... ... today we would work on the technical one (narrative 2)
>
> <jtandy> payam: suggests we have a non-technical summary of the
> scenario as a complement to the technical version
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> I had the impression that there were some very
> domain specific terms in there
>
> <Linda> I agree Bart
>
> <jtandy> proposed: we have a non-technical overview of the
> scenario to complement the technical version
>
> Payam: Bart's comment is related to the terminology discussion
> earlier
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> I had to lookup some specific weahter /
> flooding related terms
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> +1
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <Payam> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: we have a non-technical overview of the scenario to
> complement the technical version
>
> <jtandy> Linda: avoid domain specific terms in the technical
> version too
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> +1
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to make a general comment on
> "flood prediction" as a sensitive subject.
>
> AndreaPerego: flood prediction is a sensitive subject, eg may
> have an impact on insurance rates
> ... ... do we need to take this into account (potential misuse
> of the information)?
>
> jtandy: everything that may have economic impact will be a
> sensitive subject. The narrative is not about publishing
> authoritative information, just someone who wants to help.
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 - agreed.
>
> jtandy: The waterboard (for example) would validate the data
> before using it. Maybe talke this into account later in the
> story?
>
> <joshlieberman> The concern may not just be whether data is
> authoritative, but whether the Web application leads people to
> appreciate what the term "100 year flood" means for them.
>
> jtandy: points to the text in step 8 that touches on the
> subject
>
> <jtandy> intent (of SDW): web publishing is one in such a way
> that the connections between data can be followed
>
> <jtandy> (said joshlieberman)
>
> joshlieberman: even if we do not use technical terms, we still
> use technical concepts that need to be linked to from the data
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: not so much data, but connections
> between data and its meaning or implication
>
> jtandy: better look at a certain flooding event, not the
> long-term flooding prediction
>
> Linda agrees
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> jtandy: the story is just a vehicle to illustrate what we are
> doing
> ... step 1
>
> [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.281.29
> _Publish_flood_inundation_forecast_data_.28the_results_of_the_u
> rban_flood_prediction_model.29_as_a_coverage_dataset
>
> [14]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.281.29_Publish_flood_inundation_forecast_data_.28the_results_of_the_urban_flood_prediction_model.29_as_a_coverage_dataset
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to stick to a single event instead of
> prediction
>
> jtandy: coverage data suitable for use in web applications
> ... issues like versioning, volume, need for data extraction,
> bulk download for offline analysis
> ... quite a common scenario
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> next step - turn coverage into vector features
>
> [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.282.29
> _Publish_information_about_administrative_areas_within_the_muni
> cipality
>
> [15]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.282.29_Publish_information_about_administrative_areas_within_the_municipality
>
> jtandy: how do I publish the admin area information on the web?
> ... Geonovum testbed topic 4 is related
> ... support for multiple formats including those for geo
> experts
> ... how far do we want to pursue Linked Data?
> ... also need to cover the feature / real-world thing subject
>
> Linda: sounds like a large chunk (covers many BPs)
>
> <joshlieberman> We use the term feature, but most Web
> developers think that's some capability of their software. Real
> world thing is more evocative for them, so we'd need to do
> quite the education job to switch
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 to josh
>
> jtandy: need to decide whether we recommend only one approach?
>
> <joshlieberman> Argue that there may be two categories of tasks
> with Web technology -- link to data over the Web and use the
> Web to bring data together
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: "there's not a one-size fits all"
> solution
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: there's a set of sizes ...
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: "small" = linking _to_ something and
> "large" = integrate information together 'on the web' without
> needing to download stuff for offline work or use some obscure
> API
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> jtandy: agrees, some will use the SDI as a starting point,
> others come from a different starting point
> ... ... same best practice applies, just different approaches
> to the same outcome
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> jtandy: "small" would mean to publish resources with URIs?
>
> joshlieberman: yes, fine-grained URIs. Or for queries to access
> 500 features to put them on a map. Both are needed
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: "does the API let me make a single
> request to get 500 Features - rather than 500 fine grained
> requests, each with a URL of a Feature"
>
> jtandy: what is the ecosystem for using spatial data on the
> Web? Using the Browser as the platform for application?
>
> <jtandy> using data on the web: (i) referencing a resource that
> someone else has published via URL in _my_ data, (ii)
> integrating multiple data sources using 'Web engines' as
> application runtime environment
>
> jtandy: classic process of downloading data and processing it
> in a GIS is not what we are looking at
>
> <AndreaPerego> Does the notion of "Web engine" includes
> machine-to-machine use cases?
>
> jtandy: ... our focus is more the processing on the Web
>
> <jtandy> Yes to @AndreaPerego
>
> <AndreaPerego> Thanks!
>
> <jtandy> another classification of users: can our intended user
> base by classified by ‘those who are publishing information
> about individual Features’ and ‘those who are publishing
> information about collections of Features (e.g. as a dataset) …
> the former need to rely on the platform into which they publish
> to make their information discoverable [& accessible] and to
> expose provenance and licensing information; e.g. Twitter
> search API, search engines etc.
>
> <jtandy> ... another Small and Large perspective
>
> <AndreaPerego> Should we also consider the (integrated) use of
> third-party / non-authoritative data here? E.g., OSM, Geonames.
>
> joshlieberman: part of the web is others harvesting
> individually published information in large amounts
> ... small scale = publishing tweets from the area / with
> reference to the flooding
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: "Small" = create a map with a pin on
> for the location of each #flood geo-located tweet ... just
> links
>
> joshlieberman: large scale = merging this information with the
> admin units etc and analysing this to identify discrepancies
> etc
>
> <jtandy> are we writing best practices for the people _using_
> social media, or the social media platform providers to make
> sure the _aggregate_ set of social media can be exposed as
> spatial data?
>
> joshlieberman: BPs should be helpful for platform providers
>
> <jtandy> interpreting joshlieberman: we are writing best
> practices for social media platform providers - and _any_
> platform provider that has spatial information
>
> <jtandy> ... implication is that that might drive collection of
> particular information from users of the platform
>
> jtandy: when thinking about crowdsourcing - we are more
> focussing on the platform that is used for crowdsourcing
>
> joshlieberman: but this will be also about what the platform
> users want
>
> Linda: agrees that the platform is the main focus
>
> joshlieberman: but if the SDI has all the URIs for locations,
> Twitter users could use them in tweets without Twitter doing
> anything
>
> <jtandy> "small" size of problem = encouraging people to use
> URLs for the things they might Tweet about
>
> Payam: sees it a bit different, it is also about how people
> could send tweets (or publish data) so that it can be used
> easily by others
>
> jtandy: The Web is the platform in this case?
>
> <jtandy> interpreting Payam's comment: crowdsourcing
> information ... people will use the _web_ as the data sharing
> platform- either directly as Web resources, or via an App or
> some other platform
>
> <joshlieberman> Here is a case: someone might tweet: #flooding
> the water is 2 feet deep at my house. Analysis requires parsing
> 2 ambiguous statements. Alternately: #flooding [2 feet] @{link
> to my house feature}.
>
> <jtandy> (people might publish information about their house
> flooding in a blog entry; native HTML perhaps)
>
> Payam: cannot tell the Twitter user how to write tweets, but
> apps may provide a framework to make aggregated data reusable
>
> <jtandy> payam: we're targeting the part of the story that
> enables the aggregated set of information on a platform to be
> access from / published to the web in a consistent way
>
> <jtandy> there's the special case when people write HTML
> directly- but the majority of cases, people use a platform to
> do that
>
> joshlieberman: usually there are lightweight means to help
> interpretation (eg the use of hashtags in tweets)
> ... what is the minimum that people could do to make their
> contribution more usable
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: "what's the minimum we could ask people
> to do to make their [data] contribution more usable ... e.g.
> use a URL for the thing you're talking about!"
>
> jtandy: so a recommendation would be to use a format that
> supports links
>
> <jtandy> our BPs will include "use URLs when you talk about
> things"
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: so we need to make the URLs for things
> easy to find
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: ... e.g. small / tiny and easy to type
>
> <jtandy> we're seeing Twitter (etc.) "just" as a Platform
> Provider that has spatial data that should be on the Web ... so
> our advice is targeted toward the Twitter API developers
>
> jtandy: anything else on crowdsourcing?
>
> <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask if we should also
> consider the (integrated) use of third-party /
> non-authoritative data here? E.g., OSM, Geonames.
>
> <Linda> example of (pretty) tiny urls for locations:
> [16]http://w3w.co/pumpkin.dwarves.issuer
>
> [16] http://w3w.co/pumpkin.dwarves.issuer
>
> AndreaPerego: also the cases where "authoritative" data may not
> be available
>
> jtandy: so not just consider the publication of government
> data, but also other data like OSM or geonames
>
> <jtandy> AndreaPerego: suggest linking stuff to
> non-authoritative URLs e.g. geonames or OSM ... non-official
> information
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> it sounds like a discussion on 'crowd truth'
>
> <AndreaPerego> :)
>
> ClemensPortele: the result is the same, the important aspect is
> that we can link to location using URIs
>
> joshlieberman: Twitter API has data structure for places
>
> <jtandy> should we use the term Feature?
>
> jtandy: let's go back to the "feature" topic
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: confusion from IoT - folks often mean a
> software or IoT device capability
>
> joshlieberman: divergence on terminology (feature = 'software
> capability' for many)
>
> jtandy: should we impose the geo terminology on the world?
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: we should have a "general feature model
> for dummies section" if we're going to use the term Feature
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> -1 to feature its a spatial expert thing
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: try to avoid geo-jargon where possible
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 to Clemens & Bart
>
> ClemensPortele: at the same time we need to mention it to be
> clear to the geo experts
>
> <AndreaPerego> BTW, "feature" was intentionally excluded from
> LOCN for the same issues.
>
> <jtandy> Proposed: use alternative term to Feature in most of
> BP doc ... use the term Feature just once (to keep spatial
> experts clear on what we mean)
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: use alternative term to Feature in most of BP doc
> ... use the term Feature just once (to keep spatial experts
> clear on what we mean)
>
> <AndreaPerego> Quoting: "If you're a geospatial dev, AJAX is
> not a domestic cleaning product. A polygon is not a dead
> parrot." -@open_data #LGD14 #geospatialhumour
>
> <AndreaPerego> :)
>
> <jtandy> :D
>
> <jtandy> what about SpatialThing?
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: real-world Thing is quite evocative ...
> but doesn't cover the non-geo cases
>
> <jtandy> Linda: spatial object in Geosparql
>
> <AndreaPerego> I think "spatial thing" is generic enough to be
> understood by most people.
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: this is the geometry
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: SpatialResource?
>
> <jtandy> we need a term for "a thing that has location and a
> URI"
>
> ClemensPortele: not necessarily "has location", but "related to
> a location" (?)
>
> jtandy: (cites what some of the existing vocabularies have
> used)
>
> AndreaPerego: LOCN avoids this, but using only the concrete
> terms without restricting their use
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: in GeoRSS we used OWL Thing > Spatial
> Thing > Feature > Geometry ... but hey
>
> <jtandy> schema.org uses "Place"
>
> joshlieberman: for many linked to point locations, but in
> general are meaningful term
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: would like to use Place- very useful
> for geo-humanities ... but often related to just a point
> location ... but we could address this in our definition
>
> <BartvanLeeuwen> I think not spatial people will talk about
> points / places anyway
>
> jtandy: need to keep in mind that spatial is more than geo
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1 - e.g., geometry as the "shape" of a thing.
>
> joshlieberman: geographers use "place" often as a synonym for
> "feature", not "location"
>
> <jtandy> Proposed: we use the term SpatialThing because it has
> 'provenance' of over a decade
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: quite obscure
>
> <AndreaPerego> Just "thing".
>
> joshlieberman: "real-world thing"?
>
> <jtandy> Proposed: we use "real-world Thing" or sometimes just
> "Thing" in place of the term Feature
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> +1 (at least we can try if it works)
>
> AndreaPerego: are abstract things like computer drawings
> included?
>
> <jtandy> noting that we mean 'real-world' as in the 'universe
> of discourse', which should include fictional and abstract
> concepts
>
> <jtandy> AndreaPerego: need to be more than "things we can
> touch" - need to cover abstract concepts too
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: like cadastral parcel
>
> <jtandy> AndreaPerego: the notion of 'real-world' could be
> confusing - so our definition needs to make sure its clear that
> we also include abstract stuff
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: let's use 'real-world Thing' with the
> disclaimer 'imaginary', 'abstract' etc.
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: as per Feature, it may not have
> representation - but it always has identity
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1!
>
> <jtandy> proposed: we use "real-world Thing" or sometimes just
> "Thing" in place of the term Feature; with caveat that it
> includes abstract / imaginary / fictional entities ... as per
> Feature, it may not have representation - but it always has
> identity
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <jtandy> (representation implies geometry etc. ... not the
> wider Web term)
>
> +1
>
> <Linda> +1
>
> <AndreaPerego> "embodiment" (equally obscure)
>
> <jtandy> Linda: geometry or a link to a location
>
> <Payam> +1
>
> <joshlieberman> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: we use "real-world Thing" or sometimes just "Thing"
> in place of the term Feature; with caveat that it includes
> abstract / imaginary / fictional entities ... as per Feature,
> it may not have representation - but it always has identity
>
> (short break)
>
> <jtandy> [returning to the meeting at 13:30 utc]
>
> (starting again)
>
> jtandy: let's get back to the narrative
>
> step 3
>
> [17]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.283.29
> _Publish_flood_inundation_forecast_data_as_vector_dataset_and_i
> dentify_the_administrative_areas_.28.3F.29_that_each_inundation
> _area_is_predicted_to_impact
>
> [17]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.283.29_Publish_flood_inundation_forecast_data_as_vector_dataset_and_identify_the_administrative_areas_.28.3F.29_that_each_inundation_area_is_predicted_to_impact
>
> jtandy: take SDI data and do something useful with it
> ... covers spatial analysis, identifiers to features, linking
> ... do we need to discuss spatial analysis or just assume
> he/she is using some library
>
> <jtandy> do we need to talk about the spatial analysis? or just
> say that our developer is "using a library"
>
> <jtandy> Linda: the latter
>
> joshlieberman: different persons would use different
> terminology (eg the spatial analyst may use "spatial join")
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: an spatial analyst calls this "a
> spatial join"; a web developer might says they are "integrating
> datasets" or combining two sources of data ...
>
> <jtandy> ClemensPortele: a 'mashup'
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: use both terms in our doc to appeal to
> both types of users
>
> <jtandy> question: is there a specific javascript library we
> can cite?
>
> jtandy: (walks through step 3 and the BPs referenced)
>
> Linda: Are there overlaps between the steps?
>
> jtandy: not yet a proper analysis, but there is overlap
>
> Linda: Should we assign work for these steps?
>
> jtandy: good idea. What we are looking for is how to figure out
> you would do it with a real-life implementation
>
> Linda: ... point to existing implementation(s)
>
> jtandy: Yes, but those may not exactly fit the flooding
> scenario
>
> <jtandy> two tasks then: (i) point to existing implementations,
> (ii) frame those implementation patterns in the flooding
> scenario
>
> <jtandy> payam likes the idea of creating a full example - e.g.
> for publication in GitHub ... and then taking code snippets for
> the BP doc
>
> <jtandy> ... but always being able to reference a full example
> ... and hopefully, the original source implementation that our
> example apes
>
> <jtandy> "this example is derived from what they did over
> there"
>
> <Payam>
> [18]http://environment.data.gov.uk/flood-monitoring/doc/referen
> ce
>
> [18] http://environment.data.gov.uk/flood-monitoring/doc/reference
>
> <Payam> Environment Agency Real Time flood-monitoring API:
> Environment Agency Real Time flood-monitoring API
>
> <jtandy> unlikely to find implementation examples all in
> flooding domain- need to see the implementation patterns we
> want people to use and convert the subject to flooding ...
>
> joshlieberman: often it may be difficult to point to existing
> JavaScript code that implements a best practice
>
> jtandy: some examples will exist (see the coverage work eg in
> step 7), often from a different domain
>
> <jtandy> joshlieberman: key issue for river gauge datastream is
> about pulling together information from the sensor and the
> location data in the SDI (linked geometries) and 'mash' those
> up in an application
>
> <jtandy> (this is the "Large" type of usage)
>
> <jtandy> scribe: Linda van den Brink
>
> <jtandy> scribenick: Linda
>
> Payam: does Metoffice do something like the environmental
> agencies ie publishing their data as API?
>
> jtandy: no
>
> <joshlieberman> The US has some "services" but mostly graphical
> -- [19]http://water.weather.gov/ahps/about/about.php
>
> [19] http://water.weather.gov/ahps/about/about.php
>
> jtandy: in terms of work on the first 3 narrative parts...
> ... do we want to give clemens nr 2?
>
> Linda: makes sense
>
> <joshlieberman> e.g. the API's may only be as far as RSS:
> [20]http://water.weather.gov/ahps/rss/forecasts.php
>
> [20] http://water.weather.gov/ahps/rss/forecasts.php
>
> <scribe> ACTION: Linda to ask Clemens to provide an example for
> narrative item 2 [recorded in
> [21]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>
> [21] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Ask clemens to provide an
> example for narrative item 2 [on Linda van den Brink - due
> 2016-05-10].
>
> <joshlieberman> I'll need to depart as well. Apologies. I can
> do some work on #7
>
> <joshlieberman> bye
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> jtandy: the way examples are used in the narrative_2 these are
> technical tasks that allow us to illustrate the best practices,
> yes?
>
> +1
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <scribe> ACTION: joshlieberman to work on narrative item 7
> [recorded in
> [22]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02]
>
> [22] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Work on narrative item 7 [on
> Joshua Lieberman - due 2016-05-10].
>
> <AndreaPerego> yep
>
> jtandy: AndreaPerego, do you want to discuss anything before
> you leave?
>
> AndreaPerego: no, it was quite productive
> ... Am looking how I can contribute. Maybe something about
> metadata?
>
> jtandy: it's not explicit because metadata is embedded in all
> of these things
>
> AndreaPerego: it's mostly about the data
>
> jtandy: but we have to publish the metadata anyway. It's
> necessary for us to publish some geodcat-ap stuff and a landing
> page with schema.org
>
> AndreaPerego: it's part of number 1 I think
>
> Linda: yes, I think it should be somewhere in the beginning
>
> jtandy: let's add it to item 4
>
> AndreaPerego: agrees
>
> <scribe> ACTION: AndreaPerego to add a section about publishing
> metadata to item nr 4 [recorded in
> [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action03]
>
> [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action03]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Add a section about publishing
> metadata to item nr 4 [on Andrea Perego - due 2016-05-10].
>
> AndreaPerego: the opensearch and geo extension are more about
> data?
>
> jtandy: yes, about searching through the data
> ... also keen to pick up on making info available for search
> engines to index.
> ... also look at the work done within Geonovum testbed topics 3
> and 4 on this.
>
> AndreaPerego: also we are now working on mapping geodcat-ap to
> schema.org
>
> jtandy: should we have the biweekly SDW BP subgroup call
> tomorrow?
>
> Payam: we could continue this discussion
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> +1
>
> jtandy: so tomorrow we'll continue to work on these narrative
> parts and try to allocate them to people
> ... about Bruce Bannerman's email: should we try to also
> include some usage? My concern is this could mean we could
> never finish the work.
> ... if we try to describe in our BP how people should use
> spatial data
>
> <jtandy> see email response to Bruce here:
> [24]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Apr/
> 0104.html
>
> [24]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Apr/0104.html
>
> <jtandy> potential data usage examples:
>
> <jtandy> * web developer uses inundation coverage data to build
> a web app that
>
> <jtandy> returns discrete (vector) Features for inundation
> areas
>
> <jtandy> * web developer determines which administrative areas
> 'touch' inundation
>
> <jtandy> areas
>
> <jtandy> * emergency teams prioritise critical infrastructure
> to protect by
>
> <jtandy> identifying categories of assets that are 'within'
> inundation areas - or
>
> <jtandy> care-homes to assist with evacuation
>
> <jtandy> * emergency teams determine hazard exposure by
> requesting water depth at
>
> <jtandy> coordinates of critical infrastructure
>
> <jtandy> * section (5) illustrates combining census data that
> is geocoded by
>
> <jtandy> administrative areas with the administrative areas
> that are affected by
>
> <jtandy> inundation
>
> <jtandy> * emergency teams create the evacuation plans; refuges
> and safe transit
>
> <jtandy> routes- no doubt a complex piece of GI analysis
>
> <jtandy> * media and news agencies use the evacuation plans to
> build simple web
>
> <jtandy> applications- e.g. using reverse geocoding from the
> geo-location provided
>
> <jtandy> by a user agent to find the administrative area they
> are within; then
>
> <jtandy> finding the associated evac plan ... and displaying
> the refuges / transit
>
> <jtandy> routes on [web] maps
>
> <jtandy> * emergency teams (for example) using social media
> reports of flood extent
>
> <jtandy> observations to track the flood impact in real time
>
> jtandy: in my response I made a list of potential usage
> ... lots of things we could do but worried it could be too much
> work.
>
> <jtandy> worried that including usage examples will be too much
> work
>
> AndreaPerego: agrees
> ... getting spatial data on the web is the first step to
> tackle. This would be a second step.
>
> jtandy: we could prioritize: data publication first, add usage
> examples after.
>
> <AndreaPerego> +1
>
> +1
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> <jtandy>
> [25]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Apr/
> 0104.html
>
> [25]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Apr/0104.html
>
> <scribe> ACTION: jtandy to prioritize data publication over
> adding usage examples and include list of potential usage
> examples from email [recorded in
> [26]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action04]
>
> [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action04]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Prioritize data publication
> over adding usage examples and include list of potential usage
> examples from email [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2016-05-10].
>
> <AndreaPerego> Need to leave, sorry.
>
> Jeremy and Linda looking through narrative 4 through 9.
>
> <jtandy> example (4)
> [[27]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.284.2
> 9_Publish_details_of_fixed_assets_.28e.g._dikes_.26_dams.2C_bui
> ldings.2C_roads.2C_critical_infrastructure_etc..29_and_topograp
> hical_features_.28e.g._water_bodies.29]
>
> [27]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2#.284.29_Publish_details_of_fixed_assets_.28e.g._dikes_.26_dams.2C_buildings.2C_roads.2C_critical_infrastructure_etc..29_and_topographical_features_.28e.g._water_bodies.29
> ]
>
> <jtandy> ... this is a good example where we can use an
> alternative implementation approach to achieve the same best
> practice as in (2)
>
> <jtandy> ... e.g. exposing data residing in ElasticSearch as
> RESTful API rather than proxying an SDI
>
> <jtandy> spatial and textual filter: "find all electricity
> sub-stations within this flood polygon"
>
> <jtandy> (filter for search)
>
> example (5) maybe we can also add linked data fragments ref
> here.
>
> <jtandy> for API usage: "the 5-minute rule" = the maximum time
> developers will try to make a first successful call to a data
> API - or leave and find something else
>
> I came across some nice belgian examples today, see this blog
> [28]http://blog.pieter.pm/2016/04/i-do-not-want-your-open-data-
> api-id-rather-scrape-your-website/
>
> [28]
>
> http://blog.pieter.pm/2016/04/i-do-not-want-your-open-data-api-id-rather-scrape-your-website/
>
> example 8 needs to be changed based on the discussion we had
> about targeting the platform provider more than the social
> media user.
>
> jtandy: does example 9 add any value?
>
> Linda: lets ask the group tomorrow
>
> <scribe> ACTION: Linda to work on narrative example 3.
> [recorded in
> [29]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action05]
>
> [29] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action05]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - Work on narrative example 3.
> [on Linda van den Brink - due 2016-05-10].
>
> <scribe> ACTION: jtandy to crossref the narrative_2 with the
> DWBP [recorded in
> [30]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action06]
>
> [30] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action06]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Crossref the narrative_2 with
> the dwbp [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2016-05-10].
>
> <jtandy> delete action 6
>
> <jtandy> close action-168
>
> <trackbot> Closed action-168.
>
> <scribe> ACTION: jtandy to crossref the SWBBP with the DWBP to
> make it a true extension and eliminate duplication [recorded in
> [31]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action07]
>
> [31] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action07]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-169 - Crossref the swbbp with the
> dwbp to make it a true extension and eliminate duplication [on
> Jeremy Tandy - due 2016-05-10].
>
> <jtandy> DWBP is a great piece of work; currently we're
> repeating much of what they say - would it be better simply to
> extend those BPs that need extra 'spatial' context?
>
> +1\
>
> <jtandy> +1
>
> bye
>
> <jtandy> meeting is now closed!
>
> <jtandy> trackbot, help
>
> <trackbot> Please see
> <[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
>
> [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
>
> <jtandy> trackbot, end meeting
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: AndreaPerego to add a section about publishing
> metadata to item nr 4 [recorded in
> [33]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action03]
> [NEW] ACTION: joshlieberman to work on narrative item 7
> [recorded in
> [34]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02]
> [NEW] ACTION: jtandy to crossref the narrative_2 with the DWBP
> [recorded in
> [35]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action06]
> [NEW] ACTION: jtandy to crossref the SWBBP with the DWBP to
> make it a true extension and eliminate duplication [recorded in
> [36]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action07]
> [NEW] ACTION: jtandy to prioritize data publication over adding
> usage examples and include list of potential usage examples
> from email [recorded in
> [37]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action04]
> [NEW] ACTION: Linda to ask Clemens to provide an example for
> narrative item 2 [recorded in
> [38]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
> [NEW] ACTION: Linda to work on narrative example 3. [recorded
> in
> [39]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action05]
>
> [33] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action03
> [34] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02
> [35] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action06
> [36] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action07
> [37] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action04
> [38] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01
> [39] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-sdwbp-minutes.html#action05
>
> Summary of Resolutions
>
> 1. [40]we have a non-technical overview of the scenario to
> complement the technical version
> 2. [41]use alternative term to Feature in most of BP doc ...
> use the term Feature just once (to keep spatial experts
> clear on what we mean)
> 3. [42]we use "real-world Thing" or sometimes just "Thing" in
> place of the term Feature; with caveat that it includes
> abstract / imaginary / fictional entities ... as per
> Feature, it may not have representation - but it always has
> identity
>
> [End of minutes]
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 23:08:46 UTC