[Minutes] 2016-05-25

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