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

Re: SDW WG WS @ INSPIRE 2016

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 18:21:39 +0200
To: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
Cc: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Message-id: <84ad094b-583a-3ffe-7017-f24dce9929fe@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Hi, Clemens.

About this comment from the minutes:

 > - NN: What is the value of publishing spatial data on the web? Value is
 > with publishing objects that are of interest (to the domain). It is
 > different whether you publish data or something that answers a question.

I may be wrong, but it was probably made by Adam Iwaniak (Wroclaw 
University of Environmental and Life Sciences). It seems in line with 
the presentation he gave at INSPIRE 2016, where he mentions the concept 
of "spatial objects of interest":

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/pdfs/2016_psessions/29%20THURSDAY_PSESSIONS_H3_16.00-18.00______ADAM%20IWANIAK%202016%20Barcelona4%20-%20final.pdf

BTW, his presentation covers some of the issues we have been discussing 
- in particular, "making data indexable by search engines" - but it also 
elaborates on how to link spatial metadata and data "on the Web".

Andrea


On 30/09/2016 12:42, Clemens Portele wrote:
> All,
>
> this morning we had the 90 minutes workshop "W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the
> Web Working Group" at the INSPIRE Conference 2016
> (http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016). This is a
> brief summary of the (good) discussion and feedback we got. I tried to
> capture the main points, but for sure I will have failed, so amendments
> and corrections are very welcome :)
>
> Ed, is there a link to the slides that you have shown?
>
> We had about 30 attendees. Ed gave an introduction to the working group
> and its deliverables. The discussion focussed on the Best Practice
> deliverable as discussed at TPAC.
>
> TOPIC: Target audience
> - Web developers and publishers of data, practioneers
> - General agreement in the audience
>
> TOPIC: SDI and the rest
> - Need to go beyond SDIs to reach the target audience, the other 99%
> - Robin Smith, JRC: Needs to be done responsibly to avoid that something
> like another SDI is created.
> - Ed: Agreed, it is important not to reinvent the wheel
> - Markus Jobst, AT: Need the "middleware" to make it work
> - Jandirk Bules, NL: (not recorded)
> - Erwin Folmer, NL: need to target the data providers to make sure we
> can serve the other 99%
>
> TOPIC: Spatial things, features and geometry
> - Different terminology used outside of the GI community
> - The lighthouse example
> - "Feature" typically understood as a capability of a software
> - It is also more blurred whether we talk about a digital abstraction or
> the real-world entity
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: agrees
> - Markus Jobst, AT: Feels a bit like reinventing the wheel
> - Robin Smith, JRC:  Education is required, but "spatial things" is good
> because it captures peoples attention
> - Hugo de Groof, DG ENV: Why not just use "object"?
> - Alex Ramage, UK: Defnition needs to be clear
>
> TOPIC: BP7 - Use persistent HTTP identifiers
> - Robin Smith, JRC: Context is important, requires understanding of what
> change means, when does the thing needs a new identifier
> - Ed: A key aspect is that there is a URI for each identifier
> - Alex Ramage, UK: Agrees with Robin, e.g. road feature split into parts
> will receive new identifiers
> - Clemens: The BP is conceptually consistent with INSPIREs support for
> persistent identifiers. It mainly is a challenge for those that do not
> yet manage persistent identifiers and/or to run the infrastructure to
> resolve feature URIs
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Key is a resolvable identifier that follows
> the life-cycle of the object
> - Markus Jobst, AT: When I move the lighthouse or change it to a chapel,
> does it get a new identifier?
> - Jandirk Bulens, NL: Different function -> new thing -> new identifier
> - Straw poll: 50% in the room are responsible for publishing, half of
> them working with HTTP URIs
>
> TOPIC: BP4 - Make data indexable by search engines
> - Is it practicable? No comment from the audience.
> - Is it understood?
> - Erwin Folmer, NL: More than just an HTML page is needed (annotations etc)
> - Robin Smith, JRC: Geoportals still have their place, where they add
> value and organise the content
> - Ed: BPs should be done/doable in addition to current practice of the
> GI community
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: A good approach, goes beyond the current
> metadata approach in SDIs; need to clarify how it works with, e.g.,
> coverages
> - Clemens: The search engines also need to clarify how a large number of
> features should be published so that they will make them discoverable
>
> TOPIC: BP8 - Provide geometries in a usable way
> - Alex Ramage, UK: Support the CRS "you" need or "they" (the users)
> need. Rather "they"?
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Encoding is always confusing, GeoJSON,
> JSON-LD, CovJSON. Which encoding to use? On the CRS: ETRS89 vs Web Mercator
> - Jandirk Bulens, NL: Use what the community has already specified and uses
> - Clemens: DWBP has recommendation to support multiple encodings, where
> feasible. CRS: WGS84 most commonly expected/assumed, but also native CRS
> should be published, often the national CRS
>
> TOPIC: BP10 - Spatial semantics for spatial things
> - Robin Smith, JRC: What is the "best" vocabulary? Examples? Impact on
> interoperability?
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Points to the ISA Core Location Vocabulary
> - Clemens: ISA Core Location Vocabulary identifies what is a geometry,
> but not which vocabulary to use. Could be amended in the future with
> recommendations, if there is a proper best practice
> - Jandirk Bulens, NL: Topological relationships are important
> - Clemens: Yes, current idea to agree on a list of spatial and temporal
> relationships and register them with IANA
> - NN: What is the value of publishing spatial data on the web? Value is
> with publishing objects that are of interest (to the domain). It is
> different whether you publish data or something that answers a question.
>
> TOPIC: List of BPs
> - Can we identify priorities? Anything not on the list? Anything unclear?
> - Martin Tuchyňa, SK: There is pressure to have the link to
> e-government, using linked data. Guidance where to start and where to
> end is needed. The was a project providing recommendations on this.
> maybe the BPs could describe a list of steps to be taken.
> - Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Add BP to publish multiple encodings
> - Clemens: DWBP covers this, not shown here but is referenced
> - Roberto Lucchi, Esri: Most BP titels are not really "spatial", which
> other communities have been successful with these practices?
> - Erwin Folmer, NL: Two additional BPs: a) How to reuse existing
> infrastructure, easy steps for data providers. b) Queries are important,
> but unclear how to query distributed data holdings on the web since
> there are different APIs (SPARQL, etc).
> - Robin Smith, JRC: BP14 (publish links to related resources) is key for
> creating value for the 99%
> - Alex Ramage, UK: Data user could quickly become a data publisher to
> someone else.
>
> Ed closed the workshop with a call to read look at the wiki, read the
> document and send comments!
>
>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 17:04, Andrea Perego
>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>
>> Dears,
>>
>> All going well, we'll have the video recording of the workshop, which
>> can be used to complement possible gaps in the minutes.
>>
>> BTW, for those who may be interested, the video recording of the SDW
>> WG workshop at INSPIRE 2014 is available here:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P02vocsKks
>>
>> Starring (in alphabetical order):
>> - Alex Coley
>> - Bart De Lathouwer
>> - Ed Parsons
>> - Phil Archer
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> On 28/09/2016 14:58, Tandy, Jeremy wrote:
>>> I agree. Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Jeremy Tandy | Technology Fellow
>>> *Met Office*, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
>>> email: jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk
>>> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
>>> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> |
>>> web: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>
>>> /See our guide to climate change at/ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate
>>> change/guide/
>>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 13:54, Clemens Portele
>>> <portele@interactive-instruments.de
>>> <mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>
>>> <mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IRC makes sense during a meeting, but in this case I think capturing
>>>> the feedback in an email to the list should be sufficient?
>>>>
>>>> Clemens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 14:49, Tandy, Jeremy
>>>>> <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
>>>>> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes / IRC sound good to me. Basically - if you collect (valuable)
>>>>> input for the BP doc, we editors need to know what that is. If the
>>>>> input comes from a specific person / organisation it would be good to
>>>>> ask if we could follow up later to clarify ... so please get contact
>>>>> details :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> J
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Jeremy Tandy | Technology Fellow
>>>>> *Met Office*, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
>>>>> email: jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk
>>>>> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
>>>>> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> | web:
>>>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>>>>> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>>>
>>>>> /See our guide to climate change at/
>>>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate change/guide/
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 13:47, Andrea Perego
>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ' Thanks, Ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that notes would be perfectly fine - and maybe they can be
>>>>>> logged in the IRC (wifi permitting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe Linda and Jeremy have different preferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/09/2016 11:27, Ed Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks Good, how would you like the feedback collected ? Should we
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> take notes or would you like something more structured ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clemens, I'm happy to MC the session if you want to collect the
>>>>>>> feedback ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 at 09:58 Andrea Perego
>>>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Dear Ed, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   As agreed in Lisbon, we drafted a programme for the SDW Workshop
>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>   INSPIRE 2016 conference, which is now available on the WG wiki:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SDW_Workshop_@_INSPIRE_2016#Background_.26_purpose_of_workshop
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Because of time constraints (1.5h), the idea is to focus the
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>   on the BP deliverable, in particular on those BPs we see as most
>>>>>>>   relevant to the audience (these are listed in the wiki page).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   We think it would be relevant to get feedback both from the people
>>>>>>>   already doing "spatial data on the Web" (do the BPs provide a good
>>>>>>>   enough coverage of the issues they had to face and the solutions
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>   adopted?), and those who plan to do them (do the BPs provide clear
>>>>>>>   enough guidance on how to do that?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The idea is also to explain that we're trying to "crack open" their
>>>>>>>   datasets, so that each individual "data item" (spatial thing) is
>>>>>>>   addressable in the Web's information space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Do you think this make sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The wiki page includes also a tentative agenda. Probably, to get
>>>>>>>   feedback in a more effective way, it would good to have break out
>>>>>>>   sessions on the selected BPs, but I don't know if this is
>>>>>>> feasible, and
>>>>>>>   it probably depends on how many people will join the workshop.
>>>>>>> When we
>>>>>>>   had the SDW workshop at INSPIRE 2014 in Aalborg, we had around 150
>>>>>>>   people attending, and this year we have around 1,000
>>>>>>> participants at the
>>>>>>>   INSPIRE conference (more than in 2014). However, since the
>>>>>>> workshop is
>>>>>>>   on Friday, we may have a smaller audience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Linda, Jeremy and Andrea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On 05/08/2016 15:07, Andrea Perego wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is to let you know that the SDW workshop proposal for INSPIRE
>>>>>>>   2016
>>>>>>>> has been accepted, and it is scheduled on Friday, Sep, 30th, at 9AM:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/wsl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/06/2016 15:58, Andrea Perego wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Clemens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This being the situation, probably we should consider having an
>>>>>>>>> oral
>>>>>>>>> presentation, in case it won't be actually possible to run a
>>>>>>>   workshop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I submitted a draft proposal. I include below the
>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>> parts for you to review. Please change it as you see fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WORKSHOP PROPOSAL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TITLE: W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ABSTRACT:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Spatial Data on the Web Working Group (SDW WG) is a joint
>>>>>>>   initiative
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Open Geospatial
>>>>>>>   Consortium (OGC)
>>>>>>>>> aiming
>>>>>>>>> to bridge the geospatial technologies and the Web, thus
>>>>>>>   facilitating the
>>>>>>>>> publication and use of spatial data across platforms and
>>>>>>>>> communities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order to achieve this, the SDW WG is working on a set of
>>>>>>>>> deliverables, described in the WG Charter
>>>>>>>>> (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter), covering best
>>>>>>>   practices for
>>>>>>>>> the publication of spatial data on the Web, based on identified use
>>>>>>>>> cases and requirements, plus the standardisation of a set of
>>>>>>>   ontologies
>>>>>>>>> (Time Ontology, Semantic Sensor Network Vocabulary, Coverages in
>>>>>>>>> Linked Data).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The workshop is meant to illustrate the work done so far, by
>>>>>>>   providing
>>>>>>>>> an overview of the current version of the deliverables, and to
>>>>>>>   collect
>>>>>>>>> feedback from participants on the proposed solutions and open
>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AGENDA:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Introduction & purpose of the workshop
>>>>>>>>> - Background and objectives of the SDW WG
>>>>>>>>> - Overview of SDW WG deliverables
>>>>>>>>> - Breakout sessions
>>>>>>>>> - Summary from breakout sessions & conclusions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/06/2016 19:09, Clemens Portele wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> while I will likely be in Barcelona on Tuesday and Friday
>>>>>>>   morning, do
>>>>>>>>>> not make the planning dependent on me. There are other
>>>>>>>   submissions that
>>>>>>>>>> I am involved in and I expect to be already quite busy during
>>>>>>>   the week.
>>>>>>>>>> If I do not have a session conflict I will attend the workshop and
>>>>>>>>>> contribute to the discussion as good as possible, but right now
>>>>>>>   I cannot
>>>>>>>>>> commit to a more active role.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Clemens
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9 June 2016 at 15:24:41, Andrea Perego
>>>>>>>>>> (andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>   <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>   <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>>>>   <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>)
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jon, Clemens, Ed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your mails!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, the preference for the workshop would be:
>>>>>>>>>>> - 1st choice: Friday (morning?), 1.5 hours
>>>>>>>>>>> - 2nd choice: Tuesday morning, 1.5 hours
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @Jon, @Clemens, would both dates suit you well?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> About the agenda, I wonder what you think should be included.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just trying a possible outline:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Introduction to SDW WG & purpose of the workshop
>>>>>>>>>>> - Overview of deliverables
>>>>>>>>>>> - Breakout sessions on selected topics from BP / UCR & SDW
>>>>>>>   ontologies
>>>>>>>>>>> - Summary of breakout sessions & conclusions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Covering all the deliverables in 1.5 hours is probably too
>>>>>>>   much, but
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> agenda & the discussion topics could be refined based on the
>>>>>>>>>>> outcomes of
>>>>>>>>>>> the f2f at the TPAC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/06/2016 10:17, Ed Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> HI Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can be there with a probability of 1.0 on the 30th, 0.7 on the
>>>>>>>>>>> 27th,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 on the 26th !
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 21:57 Jon Blower
>>>>>>>   <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk
>>>>>>> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
>>>>>>> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk
>>>>>>>   <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will probably be there (75% confidence level), but not all
>>>>>>>   week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Jun 2016, at 20:50, Andrea Perego
>>>>>>>>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>   <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>>>>   <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> During today's call [1], we briefly discussed the option of
>>>>>>>>>>>> submitting a workshop proposal to INSPIRE 2016, considering also
>>>>>>>>>>>> that this would be an opportunity to get feedback on the new
>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the deliverables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> May I ask you who from the WG plans to be at the INSPIRE
>>>>>>>>>>>> conference? According to the draft programme [2], time slots
>>>>>>>   for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> workshops are 1.5 hour, and are scheduled on Monday (26th),
>>>>>>>   Tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>> morning (27th), and Friday (30th).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NB: I kindly ask you to let me know ASAP, since the
>>>>>>>   deadline for
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission if this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes#item04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   [2]http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/ovw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/06/2016 10:37, Andrea Perego wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Kerry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to add another item to the agenda, following
>>>>>>>   up from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes#item02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you know, the INSPIRE conference this year will be in
>>>>>>>>>>> Barcelona,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after the W3C TPAC:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We (JRC) think it would be good to present the work done
>>>>>>>   by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> SDW WG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and collect feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I wonder whether we can devote 5 minutes to discuss the
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of proposing a workshop during today's call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for submission is quite close (June, 10th),
>>>>>>>   but we
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a short abstract (max 400 words) and filling in a
>>>>>>>   template
>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   [1]http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/Workshop_template_2016.doc
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2016 14:20, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G’day,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The full SDW meeting this week will be held at the usual time
>>>>>>>>>>>> and place:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *8 June 2016 13:00 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20160608T13&p1=1440&ah=1>*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. ISSUE-18 model reuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18> and
>>>>>>>   ISSUE-19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiple types of coverage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19> and Related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. F2F meeting plan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. UCR completion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Spatial ontology: next steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More details and dial-in instructions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160608
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Kerry & Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
>>>>>>>>>>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501 <tel:020%207881%204501>
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.edparsons.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>>
>>>>>>>   <http://www.edparsons.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>> @edparsons
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>>>>>>>>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>>>>>>>>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
>>>>>>>>>>> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
>>>>>>>>>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>>>>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   --
>>>>>>>   Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>   Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>>>>>>   European Commission DG JRC
>>>>>>>   Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>>>>>>>   Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>>>>>>>   Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>>>>   21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ----
>>>>>>>   The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>>>>>>>   not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>>>>>>>   position of the European Commission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
>>>>>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
>>>>>>> <tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
>>>>>>> www.edparsons.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>
>>>>>>> <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>>>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>>>>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>>>>>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>>>>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>>>>>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>>>>>> position of the European Commission.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>> European Commission DG JRC
>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>
>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>
>> ----
>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>> position of the European Commission.
>

-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 16:22:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 October 2016 16:22:18 UTC