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

[Minutes] 2016-10-19

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:05:14 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c0bfe86b-99fb-1bfb-2c8b-8d3320cd2967@w3.org>
Predictably, the minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-sdw-minutes with a text snapshot below.

The WG voted to publish what is expected to be the final iteration  of 
its UCR doc and the next iteration of the BP doc. Thee will be published 
by both SDOs on Tuesday and WG members are encouraged to help raise 
awareness, especially beyond the geo community to seek feedback.

Votes of thanks were recorded for the editors of both docs whose work is 
deeply appreciated by everyone.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

19 Oct 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-sdw-irc


           eparsons Kerry, ScottSimmons, roba, ByronCinNZ, kerry,
           joshlieberman, AndreaPerego, billroberts, jtandy,

           Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, Clemens, Frans, Payam, Danh, Jon




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Last week's minutes
          2. [5]Patent Call
          3. [6]Change of season
          4. [7]UCR next publication
          5. [8]Vote for next PWD of Use Cases and Requirements
          6. [9]BP Next publication
          7. [10]vote for next PWD of Best Practices
          8. [11]SSN Update
          9. [12]Coverages
         10. [13]Time
         11. [14]INSPIRE conference
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      * [16]Summary of Resolutions

    <scribe> chair: Kerry

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

Last week's minutes

    <kerry> [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

    PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

    <eparsons> Not there sorry

    <kerry> +1


    <ScottSimmons> +0

    <roba> +0

    <joshlieberman> ^me^joshlieberman

    <kerry> [19]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

    <jtandy> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

    <billroberts> 0 - missed last call

    <AndreaPerego> +1

Patent Call

    <kerry> [21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    <joshlieberman> +1

    -> [22]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Patent

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

    <scribe> agenda:

Change of season

    kerry: Spring in the south, autumn in the north
    ... This willbe the consistent plenary time as defined by UTC

UCR next publication

Vote for next PWD of Use Cases and Requirements

      [23] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    kerry: Please have a look at the UCR
    ... Any comments? I don't think there have been any changes for
    a while
    ... We don't have Frans here
    ... But it was brought to everyone's attention 2 weeks ago and
    Frans has made it clear that he's happy.

      [24] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    ChrisLittle: I did pass some comments to Frans and he has
    incorpoirated them
    ... They w ere minimal typos etc.

    jtandy: Thanks to Frans for excellent work!

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    eparsons: here here

    <kerry> +1

    <joshlieberman> +!

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1 to Frans

    RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks for Frans

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <kerry> +1

    PROPOSED: That the current editors' draft of the UCR be
    published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we
    believe this will be the last iteration of this document
    ... That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as
    a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will
    be the last iteration of this document

      [25] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    <roba> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <jtandy> =1

    <jtandy> +1

    RESOLUTION: That the current editors' draft of the UCR be
    published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we
    believe this will be the last iteration of this document

      [26] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    <kerry> cheer!

    phila: Just checking, this now becomes R2

    ScottSimmons: Confirms that it the next one in the sequence

    <ScottSimmons> confirmed that R2 is the next one in the

    jtandy: I would be keen to make sure that someone who put
    effort in for early drafts is still credited

    phila: +1 That will happen.

    <jtandy> +1

    phila: My suggestion is to say Alejandro Llaves, formerly of
    UPM (early drafts)

    <jtandy> +!

BP Next publication

vote for next PWD of Best Practices [27]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

      [27] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

    <eparsons> Kudos to the editors !

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    kerry: Thanks the editors for all the work to get to this
    stage. I believe AndreaPerego had a comment

    <kerry> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    jtandy: AndreaPerego Put in a suggestion a few days ago and
    I've only just merged that.

    <AndreaPerego> Just an editorial change.

    jtandy: I thought that was editorial only so I added it.

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    phila: You said that there are some current 404 URLs

    <kerry> phila: are there 404 urls? they have to go

    phila: Can't have 404 links from a doc in /TR space

    AndreaPerego: It's code snippets in spatial representation type
    ... But they're in code snippets, not links

    jtandy: So in BP1, you have a code block that isn't an anchor.
    Just a URL, not a clickable link

    phila: e.g.
    ... Asks for status of these


    AndreaPerego: These are ISO 19115 code lists, not yet added to
    the INSPIRE registry. Not yet added but are expected to be

    phila: The note makes that clear
    ... So no problem, thank you

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that I've tried to convert
    to US-en and the glossary wasn't updated

    <AndreaPerego> The note: "The URIs in the example, denoting the
    spatial representation type, are part of a register yet to be
    added to the INSPIRE Registry. Therefore, they currently do not

    jtandy: First of all.. I have attempted to convert to
    simplified English
    ... May be some English but feel free to make that change and

    phila: Ack

    jtandy: We hoped to get an update on the glossary. Looks like
    Bill has been side-tracked
    ... That will be in the next iteration

    <billroberts> Yes, sorry on lack of progress on glossary. I am
    still happy to do it and will aim to have it ready for the next

    jtandy: Doesn't affect the gestalt of the working draft

    kerry: Quick comment - I find this new version of ReSpec
    doesn't always load properly. Not as stable as the old one

    <joshlieberman> +1 same for me

    <AndreaPerego> It's the GH rendering, I guess.

    phila: Yes, some rendering aspects on GH are a pain with the
    new stylesheet

    PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the BP doc at
    w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next

    <jtandy> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1!

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1 but change pratice to practice

    <kerry> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <roba> the doc is looking much better - less detail and more
    useful scope!

    <roba> +1

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <joshlieberman> This best pratice extends [DWBP] best practice
    Descriptive Metadata.

    <billroberts> I had to look that up - US uses 'c' for noun and

    <billroberts> according to interwebs

    RESOLUTION: That the editors draft of the BP doc at
    w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next

    <jtandy> thank you all!

    <ScottSimmons> * too late - you are on my list now

    <eparsons> Yay !!!

    <AndreaPerego> lol

    ScottSimmons: Checks that the OGC doc number needs to be
    appended with R1

    eparsons: Now that we have reached this milestone, how are we
    going to actively solicit more comments?

    <joshlieberman> Press release?

    eparsons: Might be useful to let the world know it's here.
    ... Prob not a press release but we need to get more input

    ScottSimmons: We would do a press release because it becomes
    one of our official docs. Apart from that it becomes a question
    of mentioning it at events etc that we attend
    ... maybe before our next TC

    eparsons: Also ByronCinNZ and I have been talking about getting
    non geo people involved

    <joshlieberman> pose a question to stackoverflow that's
    addressed by the bp doc...

    phila: No press release but homepage news, tweets etc

    RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to the BP editors for huge amount of
    work done

    <ChrisLittle> +1 !

    <kerry> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <jtandy> (still more work to do)

    kerry: And Jeremy, you had a plan for regular new releases

    <roba> +1



    jtandy: If we look at ^^
    ... One of the things that got us into the situation of not
    doing a release for nearly a year was that we wanted to get it
    close to being finished
    ... So maybe a 4-6 week cycle of sprints might be a good idea.
    We have identified priorities for the first sprint
    ... Startying with points raised at INSPIRE
    ... The adding a consistent example through the doc. Andrea
    suggested a call for ideas/example
    ... I think we need to continue to develop section 10 that
    talks you through how you would make decision wrt DWBP anda
    ... And we have 2 BPs that we talked about in depth at TPAC, 7
    and 4 (global IDs and indexing)
    ... Need to make sure that what we decided in Lisbon makes it
    into the doc.

    <ChrisLittle> S/wert/wrt/

    jtandy: Getting us into the time boxing attitude should help.

    <eparsons> +1 to the idea

    <AndreaPerego> +1 from me to the proposal.

    kerry: I think it's good plan. Prob want to check phil and
    scott resources for that

    <joshlieberman> so it was never actually on Pending Docs?

    <AndreaPerego> Is this one, phila?

      [30] https://github.com/w3c/echidna

    <ScottSimmons> the Best Practices document is NOT r1, rather it
    is 15-107

    <ScottSimmons> Josh - yes, the document was reserved, but never

SSN Update

    kerry: We've been working through implications of
    implementation requirements, now have a plan for how to handle
    ... Other big thing to report is that we've invited Armin
    Haller to chair the SSN sub group meeting


    billroberts: We had a call last week. There's been decent
    progress on the docs
    ... Had some encouraging news of potential implementation of
    CoverageJSON from Met office and Danh. May even be able to move
    back to Rec Track

    kerry: Minor correction, Danh was talking about RDF Cube
    implementation, not CovJSON

    -> [31]https://www.w3.org/2015/ceo-ld/report CEO-LD Project

      [31] https://www.w3.org/2015/ceo-ld/report

    roba: JUst to correct your correction. I believe Danh was
    talking about RDF data Cube descriptions of CoverageJSON so
    actually using both


    kerry: Chris - any update?

    ChrisLittle: There's one of these official calls patent claims

    phila: Explains W3C patent call process (analogous with OGC
    Patent Call)

    kerry: Chairs have some concerns about progress. Wg won't be
    happy if we can't complete that work

    ChrisLittle: I've spoken to our Skunk Works devs and try to do
    both SSN and Time in a demo
    ... Early next year

    kerry: Excellent.

    ChrisLittle: But we'll need to learn how to do ontologies

    kerry: It's easier for Time than for SSN.
    ... For SSN we hope to be able to use old implementations but
    for Time, need to look for those old implementations

    joshlieberman: This isn't a reference to Time but to SSN. We
    have a connection to O&M. There's a fairly easy path to
    implementation evidence by looking for OM evidence

    kerry: I'm interested but I;m not sure it will work given what
    an implementation needs to show.

INSPIRE conference

    <AndreaPerego> SDW @ INSPIRE 2016:

      [32] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SDW_Workshop_@_INSPIRE_2016

    eparsons: Andrea gave us the opportunity to speak at the last
    day at the Barcelona conference. Got about 40 people in the end



    eparsons: I presented some slides



    eparsons: Clemens did a good job of taking minutes while I
    rambled on
    ... First 10 mins, I put the work in context once again, what
    LD is, how the Wg was formed.
    ... Then focused on what the INSPIRE community wants (SDI for
    Europe etc.)
    ... So one topic was how we can reach out beyond the SDI
    ... Topic of the terminology (spatial thing, feature etc.)
    ... Don't think we need to redefine our terms, The term feature
    is OK as a modelling term.
    ... Majority of the time spent on the 4 topics that Andrea
    asked us to focus on. BP 7 - HTTP URIs as identifiers
    ... How would we manage the minting of URIs, managing life
    ... Surprised at how little push back there was.
    ... Likewise, BP 4 (indexing) - audience appreciated that.
    Dutch cadastre supportive
    ... The notes give you good overview of what happened.
    ... How the search engines operate, what SEO means for geo
    ... BP 8 providing geometries in a usable way - boiled down to
    encoding and CRSs.
    ... Acceptance that multiple CRSs prob good, prob boils down to
    ETRS89, Web Mercator and national CRSs

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about provision of multiple

    eparsons: A single encoding might be desirable but I said it's
    not likely to happen this time.

    jtandy: If you're talking about multiple CRSs, one thing we've
    talked about it giving people multiple representations of the
    same feature

    eparsons: Same feature in multiple representations

    jtandy: Case one might need point, another case might need
    polygon but they're the same feature.

    <joshlieberman> The polar regions are a good example of
    absolutely needing different CRS's - Web Mercator just won't do
    at all.

    eparsons: It's about what encoding and then what CRS do we
    ... Remodelling didn't come into it.
    ... Spatial Semantics of things - again some interest in one
    ontology to rule them all.
    ... Most people accecpt this as being a good thing to do.
    ... Some focus on topological relationships
    ... But we also recognise non-topological but still spatial
    ... Then went through the BPs and asked for priorities

    <jtandy> (non-comptutable relationships that don't count as

    <AndreaPerego> Many thanks, Ed (& Clemens)!

    eparsons: General agreement but that's prob through lack of
    prior familiarity

    jtandy: Thanks Ed

    <joshlieberman> nearness is a computable but non-topological

    <roba> no worries

    kerry: Any other commentws on that?

    jtandy: In terms of the docs we've voted to release - timing?

    phila: Tuesday

    eparsons: Kudos once again to the editors [Applause]

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

    <roba> bye

    <billroberts> thanks, bye

    <kerry> bye!

    <joshlieberman> bye

    <eparsons> Goodnight all

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [35]Accept last week's minutes
     2. [36]Vote of thanks for Frans
     3. [37]That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published
        as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this
        will be the last iteration of this document
     4. [38]That the editors draft of the BP doc at
        w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the
        next iteration
     5. [39]Vote of thanks to the BP editors for huge amount of
        work done

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 21:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:26 UTC