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

[Minutes Cov] 2016-10-26

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:06:09 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79e17780-0018-661c-e4a1-680f0003d97c@w3.org>
And the last one this week... the minutes of the Coverages call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwcov-minutes with a text snapshot below.

There's a lot going on here - expect not one but three docs to be 
published before Christmas.

        Spatial Data on the Web Coverages Sub Group Teleconference

26 Oct 2016



    See also: [3]IRC log

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


           scribe, dmitrybrizhinev, ScottSimmons, billroberts,




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]Progress on eo-qb
          3. [7]QB4ST
          4. [8]Coverage JSON
          5. [9]AOB?
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila


    -> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwcov-minutes Last
    meeting's minutes

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


    No objection to unanimous consensus?

    <joshlieberman> ...consent, but close enough

    RESOLUTION: Minutes of 12 Oct accepted


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



Progress on eo-qb

    -> [15]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/ EO-QB

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/

    dmitrybrizhinev: It's coming along.There are some improvements.
    Not sure what changes since we last spoke.
    ... Has some turtle examples
    ... Interested in what Rob is doing with QB4ST
    ... Also looking to add in some descriptions of our
    ... I want to read the BP, Time and SSN docs to see if there's
    stuff that should be references

    billroberts: Rob isn't here today but I see he added an update
    to his wiki page over the weekend
    ... and if you haven't seen it recently, see that. There are
    also egs in his GH repo

    dmitrybrizhinev: We met him last week and we're clarifying what
    we're both doing.

    billroberts: I was going to ask about that.
    ... A couple of Qs. Is there help that you need?
    ... Help that isn't already lined up?

    dmitrybrizhinev: I don't have immediate questions right now
    ... Will ask on the list.

    billroberts: The offer is there.
    ... Also, to ask at what point will it make sense for me and
    others to do a proper review?
    ... i.e. nearly finished enough for detailed feedback?

    dmitrybrizhinev: I expect about the new year should be a good

    <roba> sorry i'm late..

    <billroberts> hi Rob - welcome, and no problem

    kerry: I think we could ... provided we could fill in some of
    the ontology ... I would suggest feedback wold be valuable much
    ... It's an example that covers a lot of what's going on in the
    group. It has SSN, Prov, OWL-Time
    ... and hopefully some BPs as well.
    ... So for that reason, I think it wojld benefit from more
    exposure before New Year.
    ... I think we'll have enough for a FPWD before January. Maybe
    1st week of December

    dmitrybrizhinev: My exams are done by mid Nov

    kerry: Australians can take a bit of a breather
    ... I think aiming for a publication before Christmas makes
    sense all round.

    billroberts: That sounds good to me. I think it's shaping up
    nicely, esp how other ontologies fit in.
    ... I've added it to my To Do list

    kerry: It needs the middleware explanation.
    ... A Q for Phil - the code etc. is all in GH, not in w3 space
    ... and a related Q - the application.
    ... On stability. This is a Note, but we can't maintain it
    beyond a year.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about FPWD

    <billroberts> phila: dmitry - there's a lot of good work in
    here already. It's already pretty much complete enough for FWPD

    <billroberts> ...apart from minor things like acknowledgements

    <billroberts> ...If there are open issues, then add them in to
    the document

    <billroberts> ...it's better to publish early

    <billroberts> ...So seems feasible to get FWPD out in December.
    That doesn't mean it's finished, but gives people early
    visibility of what we are working on

    <billroberts> ...and question to Kerry: is there an example web
    application that goes wtih this?

    <billroberts> kerry: yes there is a web app that uses the
    example data (and much more)

    <billroberts> phila: a publication in TR-space (which includes
    Notes) needs to have all supporting material in the same
    directory, which often means making multiple copies of shared

    <billroberts> ...the document should include screenshots and a
    description, plus a link to the app itself

    <billroberts> ...it's ok that the application won't be
    maintained indefinitely

    <billroberts> ...but the document itself should be meaningful
    and readable 50 years from now

    <billroberts> ...For example, our own BP document

    -> [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-sdw-bp-20160119/ FPWD of
    the BP doc

      [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-sdw-bp-20160119/

    <billroberts> phila: see that this includes lots of links to
    open issues

    <billroberts> phila: Scott, anything different for OGC?

    <billroberts> ScottSimmons: same at OGC

    billroberts: I saw Rob on the queue


    roba: I've bvegun working it into the Note format
    ... I've revamped the ontology following a discussion with
    Kerry down in Canberra
    ... I hope by the end of this week to have pushed something out
    for internal review
    ... I'd like to aim for a FWPD at the same time as EO-QB as
    they cross reference each other
    ... I need more eyes on the ontology
    ... especially on the OWL entailment.

    billroberts: So you reckon your stuff will be ready for some
    review by the WG?

    kerry: Phil missed a question
    ... Do yo want the code in a W3 GH?

    billroberts: Anything more, Rob, to add?

    roba: Not really. I've started the process of creating an LD
    resource to back this up.
    ... There will be stuff to review.
    ... Some is normative to the Note, some is more explanatory

    <ScottSimmons> * apologies all, I now get the great pleasure of
    visiting my dentist - coverages are far more interesting

    <billroberts> phila: documents that show cool things you did
    with the material from a W3C Note can probably go in your own

    <billroberts> ...W3 doesn't have anything better or more
    permanent than that

    roba: The QB4ST Note is very short, it's just an ontology


      [17] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/RDF_Datacube_for_Coverages

    <billroberts> phila: W3 can provide a namespace for the
    ontology, and hosting a test suite etc

    <billroberts> ...running code and detailed examples can go best
    in your own space

    <billroberts> ...stable building blocks fit well at W3C

    <billroberts> phila: it's fine for it to be in teh
    opengeospatial space too

    <billroberts> ...so can just leave it there

    <billroberts> roba: this is a building block for EO-QB not a
    primer for it

    kerry: Another idea... we tried to get this on last week's
    plenary agenda. They're not really aware of this work coming
    along so need some internal dissemination.
    ... Maybe some of this could go into the spatial ontology that
    Josh is working on.
    ... It's being used in the EO-QB as well. Maybe it gets wrapped
    into that doc.

    Josh: Prob the best way for the spatial ontology is to update
    ... I created it as an update of GeoSPARQL as I needed to base
    other thinbgs on it
    ... We needed a basic spatial ontology to base both the BPs and
    other efforts on
    ... It;s a general spatial ontology. It's currently in my own
    namespace. I've discussed it with Scott.
    ... I could put a Note together. It makes more sense to us for
    it to be an OGC doc referenced by the work here.
    ... I'm open to otehr methods but that seems the consensus way.

    kerry: If it goes that way, good.

    roba: I had a chat with Josh. The first version had a
    dependency on Josh's interim version.
    ... I took a leaf from the SSN modularisation discussion. For
    the very few concepts from there, I've calle edthem out and
    created a local place holder in the QB4ST namespace but it says
    oit's meant to be aloigned with the general spatial ontology
    ... We don't wante a hard dependency on something whose status
    is currently unknown.

    Josh: I think its largely a timing problem. Ideally, QB4ST will
    import GeoSP2

    roba: I'm happy tpo take guidance from the community of course.

    Josh: SO one of the issues it trying to help other people do
    the right thing. The difficulty with using the basic Geo is
    that there are several incompatibilities with the OGC/ISO
    ... We can map it, but it would be good not to start with that.
    ... Start with something broader.
    ... We can have a basic but fairly complete spatial ontology.
    Multiple and identifiable geometries, CRSs etc.
    ... I don't think we have time for a CRS ontology.
    ... There's an effort by Natalie at IGN to do that. Making good
    on the idea that the application of a lot of these depends on
    getting hte CRS right.

    billroberts: Is there already something that we can see?

    Josh: The OWl and Turtle files are available

    <joshlieberman> [18]http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo

      [18] http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo

    joshlieberman: I started out having this in Web Protoge but I
    gave up on that in the end. I'm working on the documentation
    that isn't in the ontology itself

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about IANA

    ns.xhtml IANA Link registry


    <roba> qb4st imports OWL-Time (updates) now - but OWL
    expressivity for temporal being possibly a "coded" dimension as
    well is going to take some thought..

    [Discussion about getting spatial and temporal relations into
    the Link Registry]

Coverage JSON

    billroberts: Not much to report ad Jon is working on finalising
    his project. But last time I spoke to him he thought end
    November was a good time line to have that out.
    ... No real progress in last 2 weeks

    phila: So we're looking at getting the 3 docs out together
    before Christmas


    roba: Just one more thing... I'd be happy to take other
    contributors on board for QBST

    billroberts: Things generally go better as a team effort.

    kerry: I'd like to volunteer but I daren't. I can try but don't
    bank on it.

    billroberts: Given that people don't always read these minutes
    in detail, might be worth putting a call out to the mailing

    roba: I'll get the first cut of the Note in the right format.

    <kerry> thankyou bye!

    <roba> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [20]Minutes of 12 Oct accepted

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2016 21:06:10 UTC

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