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

[Minutes-BP] 216-10-26

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:02:50 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <289f717e-1730-1290-acba-86e11917a5fa@w3.org>
Predictably enough, the minutes of today's BP call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Thanks to Andrea for scribing.



           Spatial Data on the Web BP Sub Group Teleconference

26 Oct 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20161026

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Linda, Bart, frans, ScottSimmons, AndreaPerego, phila,
           MattPerry, billroberts

    Regrets
           Jeremy, Byron, Clemens, Ed, Kerry, Payam

    Chair
           Linda

    Scribe
           AndreaPerego

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Approve last telecom minutes
          2. [6]Patent call
          3. [7]Spatial vs geospatial scope / outreach to non-geo
             spatial communities
          4. [8]Comments from INSPIRE workshop
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <Linda> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwbp-minutes

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwbp-minutes

   Approve last telecom minutes

    +1

    <Linda> +0 was absent

    <frans> It says you where there Linda

    <ScottSimmons> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <frans> You even were scribe

    RESOLUTION: Last telecon minutes approved

    <frans> +0 (really was not there)

    <Linda> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

   Patent call

   Spatial vs geospatial scope / outreach to non-geo spatial communities

    <Linda>
    [13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/
    0099.html

      [13] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0099.html

    Linda: The question is whether we want to be make sure that
    guidance on non-geo spatial data is provided.
    ... this is actually also in the WG name.
    ... We have some non-geo UCs.
    ... But we don't have non-geo people active in the group.
    Danger is that we just focus on *geo* spatial data.

    <frans> In the charter it says: ¨'Geo' is not the only spatial
    data. In healthcare, for example, polygons may represent
    pathology tissue segmentation extractions that can be subjected
    to spatial analysis. Whilst prioritizing geospatial use cases,
    in so far as is practical, the WG will take account of the
    needs of other users of spatial technologies.¨

    Linda: The idea is to try to contact non-geo people to
    contribute.
    ... WDYT?

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Erich Bremer et al

    phila: The idea of using "spatial" instead of geo came from a
    W3C member (Eric Bremer) who has not been active for some time.
    I can contact him and tell him to speak up.
    ... I can also contact other people - and other WG members can
    do the same.
    ... If the contacted people respond, fine, otherwise we move
    on.

    Linda: Narrowing the scope to *geo* spatial is not desirable.

    <joshlieberman> Is "spatial" an issue beyondn more
    possibilities for CRS?

    frans: People doing spatial modelling are not using geo
    standards - so this is one of the target communities.
    ... good to have a scope as large as possible.

    <joshlieberman> But should they be using geo standards, many of
    which are quite general to spatial dimensions?

    frans: A question to phila: Are there any W3C groups we can
    outreach.

    phila: There are some - as the Geolocation API - but they do
    not seem to be in our target.

    frans: We can have a chat with the UC contributors, telling
    them we have a new version of the document, ask them whether it
    fullfills their need. But besides that, difficult to say how to
    accomplish that.

    <joshlieberman> Question: are we considering real world but not
    geocentric space, or also considering conceptual spaces (e.g.
    compositional space)?

    ScottSimmons: Sometimes data consumers use geospatial data
    without recognising they are spatials (e.g., building data).
    ... I'll be meeting in 2 weeks with buildingsmart international
    and I can try and see if they can provide feedback.

    <Linda> buildingsmart international

    frans: It would be definitely interesting to have them
    involved.

    <frans>
    [14]http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/future/linked-data/linked
    -data

      [14] http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/future/linked-data/linked-data

    joshlieberman: Anyone working on engineering diagrams can
    benefit from a general geo framework. Anyway, while working at
    the conceptual level, the critical bit is defining the relevant
    subset of a general framework, providing a different context to
    the defined concepts (e.g., CRSs),

    Linda: Can you check the CRS part of the BP and see which
    changes need to be done?

    joshlieberman: [agrees]

    frans: Another case is base data, where they also are trying to
    model geo stuff as geometries.
    ... So, also here the input from the geo perspective would be
    useful.

    <joshlieberman> AndreaPerego - note is reasonably accurate.
    Thanks.

    <phila> phila: Yes, SVG has geometry but it's the geometry of
    the display screen.

    frans: About other W3C groups, some of them they use notions as
    geometry, and it may be worth to ensure alignment.

    Linda: [mentioning the SVG group]

    <joshlieberman> As I recall, Takagi has been advocating for
    better CRS support in SVG but hasn't gotten complete traction.

   Comments from INSPIRE workshop

    See thread:
    [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/
    0103.html

      [15] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0103.html

    Linda: We have a new BP version, and the idea is to release new
    versions on a regular basis.
    ... One of the inputs to be taken into account comes from the
    INSPIRE workshop.
    ... Clemens highligheted in the mail below two comments:
    ... "Most BP titels are not really 'spatial'. Which other
    communities have been successful with these practices?" - It
    would provide substance to the claim that we recommended
    practices are indeed "best" practices, if we could point not
    just to specific examples per BP, but point to cases where
    other communities (than the SDI community) are already
    following the DWBP principles and have measurably benefited
    from this."
    ... [going through the relevant BPs]
    ... Their titles don't look specific to spatial data.
    ... So, are there BPs in other communities we can re-use /
    refer to?

    BartvanLeeuwen: I wanted to comment about the measurable impact
    of BPs.

    <billroberts> sorry I'm late -figured better late than never

    BartvanLeeuwen: Actually, this may be difficult to measure - is
    like measuring the impact of open data.
    ... Maybe phila can comment on what has been done in the DWBP
    WG.

    frans: I'm not sure I understand the comment reported by
    Clemens. It's just about the title? We don't need to repeat
    "spatial" in the title.
    ... About checking BPs outside the geo domain, this should be a
    job for the DWBP.

    Linda: Good point. But I think the main question is whether
    there's evidence that other communities have been successful
    with such BPs.
    ... Also the DWBP should have such pointers.

    frans: So, probably is just a job for the DWBP WG.
    ... We can just say that we extend what they did.

    <joshlieberman> Is this just a question of inserting "spatial"
    into the titles in the BP where it is perhaps currently
    implicit?

    Linda: Yes, joshlieberman, it may be just adding "spatial" in
    the title.

    <frans> Would that not be redundant?

    joshlieberman: If this is the case, it's just a minor change to
    be done.

    BartvanLeeuwen: I agree with both joshlieberman and frans.
    Actually, if you look at some BPs, maybe they talk about
    something general (e.g., use HTTP URIs), but how you do that is
    in many case domain-dependent.

    Linda: Could you please elaborate?

    BartvanLeeuwen: [I'm afraid I missed it, Bart]

    <frans> It seems we are not clear on what the perceived problem
    really was

    BartvanLeeuwen: frans's comment is spot on: "what are we trying
    to solve?"
    ... Putting a "spatial" tag does not ensure spatial people
    understand that BP is for them.

    <joshlieberman> In the case of BP 12, it is actually
    substantive to say that we recommend providing spatial search
    of spatial data. Maybe not in other cases.

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to mention that the DWBP is
    now running a survey to collect evidence for their BPs

    <frans> AndreaPerego: DWBP are running a survey.

    <frans> ... could we do the same?

    <frans> ... adding the word ´spatial´ to all titles would be
    superfluous

    <frans> ... perhaps the commenters did not read the document
    carefully enough

    <frans> Yes, web documents are not read in the same way as one
    reads a book

    Linda: Yes, but probably it would be good that "how a BP
    applies to me" be clear even though you start reading in the
    middle.

    <phila> [16]Evidences form

      [16] http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/

    phi

    <phila> [17]evidence spreadhseet

      [17] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RhMGyG0ZYb73RkteYr39Xqt7f5xi0BUQmSiDqjkHOSA/edit#gid=853876221

    <joshlieberman> Interesting question - will there be links to
    each individual BP - in which case having "spatial" in the
    title might improve searchability.

    phila: Yes, the DWBP created an online form, and also a
    spreadsheet.
    ... it's quite complex.
    ... It is worth collecting evidence for the SDW BP, but we have
    to take into account the time we have (also considering the
    extension).

    Linda: Second comment from Clemens:
    ... 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)." - It
    is worth checking, if these aspects are covered sufficiently
    already or if we should add something, for example, additional
    BPs as proposed
    ... Quite interesting to me - we did a lot of work on this in
    the Geonovum testbed.
    ... Also the second one may be relevant - although not
    completely clear to me.

    BartvanLeeuwen: I've shown something like that, and I also
    wonder we need to have such BP.

    Linda: Tend to agree.

    joshlieberman: we can improve wording of existing BP's to
    emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather than
    (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well as to
    emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just "API's"

    frans: Agree that "federated queries" use case can be added.

    Linda: Do you have something to contribute on this,
    BartvanLeeuwen ?

    BartvanLeeuwen: Need to think about.

    <joshlieberman> My response: we can improve wording of existing
    BP's to emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather
    than (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well
    as to emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just
    "API's"

    <BartvanLeeuwen> thx linda

    <frans> Thanks, have a good day

    <joshlieberman> Thanks and bye.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [18]Last telecon minutes approved

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2016 15:02:54 UTC

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