- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:30:39 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes with a text snapshot below.
Congratulations to the WG, especially relevant editors, for getting the
SSN ontology to FPWD/Discussion paper. All being well, it will be
published on Tuesday 31st (by both SDOs).
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
25 May 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160525
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
eparsons, ByronCinNZ, frans, ahaller2, kerry, Linda,
ScottSimmons, billroberts, roba, jtandy, phila,
MattPerry, AndreaPerego
Regrets
Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, Raúl, Jon, Nicky, Bart
Chair
eparsons
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Time Progress
* [6]Summary of Action Items
* [7]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<eparsons> hello ByronCinNZ welcome !!
<ByronCinNZ> Thanks
<frans> Hello Byron, how nice of you to join the club
<ByronCinNZ> My pleasure entirely
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 25 May 2016
<billroberts> (mostly present anyway)
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<ByronCinNZ> Yes
<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
<eparsons> [8]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html
<jtandy> +0 ... was elsewhere
<kerry> +1
<eparsons> +1
PROPOSED: Accept those minutes
<frans> +0
<Linda> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes
[9]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
<eparsons>
[10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_CallPatent Call
[10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<eparsons> Topic : SSN FPWD Update
-> [11]SSN Ed Draft
[11] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/
<roba> +1
kerry: We warned folks that there wasn't much more to do before
we published. Not much done since then, most of what has been
done has been cosmetic.
... Substatial bit was to add in the auto-generated description
of the vocab.
... People asked for the namespace to be included and linked -
done.
... Talked a lot about modularisation - big issue
... And to make clear that what we have at this stage is just
some ideas in the section on modularisation and work to be
done.
... So not all that fully developed but we'd like to published
it as an FPWD/Discussion doc
... The SSN CG output is unchanged except for the import of the
DUL ontology.
... Since we brought this to everyone's attention, Andrea asked
for a diagram to be put in.
... I pointed him to an old diagram...
<kerry>
[12]https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/imag
es/OntStructure-Overview.jpg
[12]
https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/images/OntStructure-Overview.jpg
kerry: I didn't put it in so that I wasn't changing it yet
again havign said it was stable. And because Andrea wasn't
keenn on it. We had it in an earlier version and took it out.
... It has a modular structure that we may not keep.
<AndreaPerego> Maybe it can be split into several diagrams + a
general one including the main concepts.
eparsons: Thanks Kerry
kerry: Any questions?
<AndreaPerego> Something similar to what was done for PROV.
kerry: Thanks Phil for cleaning up the LODE stuff
eparsons: Any questions and/or comments
<jtandy> component in a material is β, given a probability α
of falsely
<jtandy> line 346 of index.html
jtandy: A quick look through... if you look at the section
4.1.6 - not sure I understand that. Line 346 in the GH doc
kerry: That's in the automated processing in LODE. Will have
come out of an annotation in the ontology itself. I'll fix
that.
<eparsons> phil : Needs to be american english capital W for
web
<ahaller2> I can do that
<AndreaPerego> Me too ;)
phila: Thanks ahaller2
AndreaPerego: A comment on the figures... I think a diagram is
very useful.
... The figure that you pointed to is quite complex. Maybe an
option would be to split it into different figures then have a
general figure linking the entities and leaving out the
details.
... This was used in the PROV ontology, for example.
... For me, looking at the doc, I just see a list of classes
and properties and it's hard to understand the model
kerry: Although I agree with you, and what you describe has
beenn done before
... it was done by hand - quite a big job.
... Really hesitant to do that and transfer it over given the
discussions taking place at the moment. I strongly suspect that
the breeak up will look quite different.
<roba> +1 - but perhaps a placeholder saying we intend to do
so?
kerry: Not keen to take that on in the short term.
... Would likely be a wasted effort
<ahaller2> +1 to not including a diagram at this stage
kerry: I could put that old picture in there but I'm not keen
to take on a new diagram solution, esven though it is clearly
required.
... We could link to the SSNXG
AndreaPerego: I understand the problem. If we havea just the
main entities, the ones unlikely to change - that's the core.
kerry: I'm afraid that is the main entities - SSN is quite big.
AndreaPerego: I tried to visualise it using VOWL
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest you add a note to the
document indicating that you're waiting for discussion to reach
consensus before creating diagrams?
jtandy: I'd suggest that creating a diagram is hard, we can at
least say that a diagram is coming.
<eparsons> +1 to diagram placeholder
kerry: That seems appropriate. I can do that.
jtandy: Tell people you're not going to just given them a list
and expect people to stitch it together themselves.
frans: Slightly different question. I see you're separating
from DULCE. Are you planning to tighten the link with other
vocabs on time and space =- especially our Time deliverable
kerry: Yes.
Linda: Going back to the diagram issue. I understand, as a
fellow editor, that you have time constraints. On the other
hand you want feedback - don't people need a diagram to give
feedback?
kerry: Fair view - you woldn't understand it very well without
knowing SSN already.
<jtandy> [I wonder if you could include the old version of the
diagram as a placeholder?]
kerry: Sounds to me as if we should link to the old one for now
and say that it will be replaced
<jtandy> [that's the idea]
PROPOSAL: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN
diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a
future version to reflect the modularisation.
kerry: The people who will make useful comments about adding
new stuff, or aligning it, what goes in what module - those
people will have experience with it already
... Short answer is no, I don't think so
eparsons: Any other comments or questions
PROPOSAL: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN
diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a
future version to reflect the modularisation.
<eparsons> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<jtandy> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<billroberts> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<ahaller2> +1
RESOLUTION: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN
diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a
future version to reflect the modularisation.
<frans> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<roba> +1
eparsons: So we should make that change before FPWD?
kerry: Yes
PROPOSED: That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology
be published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to -
components in the material text be fixed; American English;
capital W; and the diagram as resolved
... That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology be
published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to -
omponents in the material text being fixed; American English
being used throughout; capital W for Web; and the diagram as
resolved
<ahaller2> +1
<Linda> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<frans> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<eparsons> +1
ScottSimmons: This will need to be carried forward to the
Geosmeantics DWG. We'll have to discuss how to do this as we
don't currently have a Standards WG for this
<billroberts> +1
eparsons: Good point.
ScottSimmons: It expedites our process - it aligns with W3C
process. Community standards are very new at OGC of course.
kerry: is there something I should do?
ScottSimmons: Yes, when I know what they are
... What we're doing now is adequate preparation
<jtandy> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
RESOLUTION: That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology
be published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to:
components in the material text being fixed; American English
being used throughout; capital W for Web; and the diagram as
resolved
phila: We'll publish it on Tuesday 31st
<eparsons> Topic : BP Progress, Testbed and fire service
example
Linda: Last week we had a BP call. We haven't yet made a lot of
progress on the narrative that we talked about last time. I
made some progress and I see that Andrea has also done this.
... I hope others who have their names on bits of the narrative
will do the same.
... Some people have asked whether it's appropriate to cite the
Geonovum testbed as it is experiemental.
... I'd like to put that to the group here.
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest its ok
jtandy: My opinion is that the stuff from the Geonovum testbed
is evidence of what people are doing in the reakl world now
without any new technologies so I think it's OK
AndreaPerego: +1 to jtandy
... The links to the examples in the spec will be included for
the long term, we need to point to some references that won't
change in the near future.
... No 404s please.
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about local copies
eparsons: That might be hard - we want to give examples of what
is true at the time of writing
phila: We can put copies in the directory with the doc on
w3.org which will make it persistent
Linda: It might be a bit too big
phila: Maybe an extract?
Linda: That could work, yes
eparsons: What sort of example are we talking about here?
Linda: There are some code snippets in JSON and some
simplification of coordinates
... We plan to use more testbed content in the BP doc.
eparsons: OK, so code snippets and encoding, rather than
references to BPs happening elsewhere.
... OK
Linda: The other subject that we want to talk about is the fire
department example. Bart has offered to work on a consolidated
example around the flooding narrative
... He'll do this within the context of the project he has with
the Dutch fire department. So that's running code.
... That's my update.
eparsons: Thank you then. So those of us who have our names
there should be getting on with this.
jtandy: One of the things that I'm doing is going through the
almost final DWBP Doc www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/
... It's turned into a very good doc. I think all the BPs
they're talking about are relevant for spatial data. We don't
need to focus on them all.
... Others we may chose to specialise
... It doesn't talk about linking as much as I'd like.
... I'm looking at how we can capitalise on their work without
repeating it.
... I'd like to make a proposal back to SDW in future about
what to do with this.
eparsons: I was looking at the doc this morning. It's very
good. I like the structure. Happy that we're borrowing some of
that structure.
AndreaPerego: This happened to me when we were drafting the bit
on metadata. I went through our BPs and DWBP BPs and found the
matches and relationships
... Some of the requirements - I was explaining in the
narrative that some of the BPs aren't mentioned in our
narrativeas they're more generic.
... I think it's important to explicitly say that this is a
specialisation of BP {x} and how to enforce it in the spatial
domain.
jtandy: Everything in that doc is relevant, but we have some
extra stuff to say.
roba: I did post a comment to the list in reponse to Andrea's
comment. I thought there was some weakness in the BPs in that
metadata was focussed on discovery metadata
... There were references for data quality.
<frans> do data on the web best practices have URIs?
roba: There were mechanisms for machine readable structural
metadata. We see times when we want different flavours on
metadata.
... It's not clearly described for how to attach these things
to real world objects on the Web.
... maybe it's worth making a comment to DWBP
<Linda> Yes Frans they do
jtandy: They're going to fix errors, but they're probably not
going to add new sections now
... So if there's something missing then we should put it in
ours.
roba: Now's the last chance to make changes then.
eparsons: If there's something we need that's missibng then,OK,
we'll add it.
<AndreaPerego> s/IF there's something we need that's
missibng/If there's something we need that's missing/
Time Progress
<eparsons> [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
eparsons: this is stuff that Simon has been getting on and
doing
<frans> Does the SDW BP reference DW best practices by URI?
eparsons: Pretty much on his own.
... He has difficulty joining these calls due to time zone
issues.
... I guess this is a call for us to look at it and then
socialise it/.
... But note that there is a lot of good work going on.
jtandy: Chris is still involved and working with Simon. I've
been in Geneva so a bit out of the loop.
eparsons: I just want to make sure it's not just Simon working
in isolation.
jtandy: I believe Simon is taking his previous work and putting
it into shape. Chris is providing wider context
<eparsons> Topic : W3C TPAC and F2F in Lisbon
<eparsons>
[14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F4
[14] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F4
eparsons: I'm particularly asking you to think about. Whether
you're going to be attending or not attending either way.
... We keep badgering you about this as it's a touristy place
at a touristy time. Hotels will be booked etc.
jtandy: but panicking about where you're going to stay is part
of the fun
phila: The planners need to know one way or the other
AndreaPerego: I'm trying to book my flight and hotel, but I'm
not sure about the relevant days.
... We have Mon-Tue and the plenary day. Can we have meetings
with other WGs?
-> [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html Schedule
[15] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html
eparsons: The added complexity of course is the concurrent OGC
TC
... I certainly aim to be there Mon-Wed
... Thanks everyone. Good timing today. Meet in this plenary in
2 weeks' time
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<ahaller2> bye
<frans> thanks and have a good day
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [16]Accept minutes
http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html
2. [17]That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN
diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in
a future version to reflect the modularisation.
3. [18]That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology be
published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to:
components in the material text being fixed; American
English being used throughout; capital W for Web; and the
diagram as resolved
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 14:32:26 UTC