[Minutes F2F] 2016-09-19

The minutes of yesterday's TPAC F2F are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes, linked from the agenda and 
pasted below as text.


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

             Spatial Data on the Web WG F2F, TPAC 2016 Day 1

19 Sep 2016


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-irc


           AZ, AndreaPerego, BartvanLeeuwen, BernadetteLoscio,
           ByronCinNZ, Chris_McGlinn, ClemensPortele, DanBri,
           DanhLePhuoc, Linda, RaulGarciaCastro, ahaller2,
           billroberts, dmckenzie, eparsons, fasr, frans,
           hadleybeeman, jtandy, kerry, phila, newton

           Payam, Chris Little, Josh Lieberman


           Armin, phila, ahaller2, kerry, billroberts,
           ClemensPortele, RaulGarciaCastro


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]BP number 7
          2. [6]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#indexable-by-search-en
          3. [7]Best Practice 8: Provide geometries on the Web in a
             usable way
          4. [8]Indirect Identifiers
          5. [9]Bart's demonstration of linking to WFS
          6. [10]Are we meeting the needs of practitioners- if not,
             how can we improve?
          7. [11]"How do we kick the RDF habit?"
          8. [12]Agenda for tomorrow
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      * [14]Summary of Resolutions

    <eparsons> Morning all - We are working on getting the webex to
    work with the room ... please wait than you

    <AZ> hello

    <trackbot> Date: 19 September 2016

    <kerry> scribe: Armin

    <kerry> scribenick: ahaller2

    <AZ> AZ = Antoine Zimmermann

    Ed: begins with a tour de table

    <fasr> fasr = Francisco Regateiro (Lisbon University)

    <scribe> scribe: ahaller2

    <scribe> scribeNick: ahaller2


      [15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4

    eparsons: going through agenda

    <eparsons> [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

    eparsons: patent call

    <frans> overview of recent changes in the UC&R document:


    frans: UC&R introduction
    ... some changes to requirements have been made

    <frans> [18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

    frans: 6 possible upcoming changes
    ... other subgroups should be aware of these new requirements

    eparsons: are there any requirements we can close now?

    frans: more that people are aware of them

    kerry: let's work through the list of requirements

    frans: issue-75

    <phila> issue-75?

    <trackbot> issue-75 -- quality metadata out of scope? -- open

    <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/75

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/75

    frans: quality for each set of data point may be needed

    kerry: quality indicators can be modelled in SSN

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if the requirement is a
    little more generic ...

    kerry: SSN will be linked to Coverage which is one requirement
    ... in my opinion, it is out of scope here

    jtandy: data acquisition may be another use case where you
    attach metadata to a data point

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about DQV

    jtandy: i have not seen a common practice how to attach
    metadata to the data point
    ... for example, someone says the flood water has come to their
    house. it would be useful to see metadata attached to that.
    ... attach metadata to a dataset record

    kerry: it is a pattern, not an ontological requirement

    phila: I don't think it is out of scope
    ... we don't have to do it ourselves, other working groups have
    done that

    <phila> [20]DQV

      [20] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/

    phila: it is in scope, it is important to talk about accuracy
    and precision. It is important for the editors for those
    deliverables to include examples how to use it.

    <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that clinical sometimes
    relegate uncertainty to extensibility mechanisms have lots
    include stuff like at-least or at-most in the core

    billrobe_: identify individual data points might be a
    requirement too.

    ericP: clinical domain, where it was very important to talk
    about quality of data

    eparsons: we could close issue-75 by saying it is in scope

    frans: do we have a crowd-sourcing use case?
    ... use case to attach metadata not for datasets, but for
    individual data points

    RESOLUTION: Issue-75 is in scope, close issue-75.

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    frans: make it a requirement for best practices, potentially
    also for SSN


    frans: Issue-70

    <phila> close issue-75

    <trackbot> Closed issue-75.

    <phila> issue-70?

    <trackbot> issue-70 -- Add a requirement for avoiding
    coordinate transformations? -- open

    <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70


      [22] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70

    frans: I don't think anyone is opposed to this requirement

    eparsons: can we talk about the wording
    ... putting a huge effort on the publishers, realistically we
    don't project data to multiple coordinate reference systems

    ByronCinNZ: default CRS should be the fall back

    <frans> proposed requirement: *Requirement: *Data consumers
    should be helped in avoiding coordinate

    <frans> transformations when spatial data from multiple sources
    are combined.

    billrobe_: in practice we talk about 2 CRS covering 99% of the
    use cases

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest that we're missing a best
    practice for publishing in multiple formats and

    billrobe_: the publisher taking work of the user is a good

    jtandy: if you publish in the CRS of your national agencies
    requirement, look at your audience and decide if you can
    publish in multiple CRSs, e.g. your national and mercator
    ... if you can afford it, do it

    eparsons: finesse the wording here. publish in multiple CRS to
    meet your user requirements
    ... e.g. if you are in Britain, publish in British national
    grid and another one

    frans: we need to keep the requirement phrased as a
    requirement, not to propose a solution
    ... one solution is to publish data using multiple CRS, but we
    should not include that in the requirement

    <phila> phila: Notes BWBP 14

      [23] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#MultipleFormats

    <phila> phila: As many users as possible will be able to use
    the data without first having to transform it into their
    preferred format.

    kerry: the publishers are our users as well. We should make the
    life easy for both.
    ... how to we identify the CRS and is there a default CRS?

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to agree with Frans

    jtandy: there is never to be a default CRS
    ... we can't make a reference to a coordinate without a CRS!

    phila: best practice 14 from dwbp
    ... as many people as possible will be able to use the data
    without transforming it


      [24] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-dwbp-20160830/#MultipleFormats

    ericP: encouraged to publish in standard format is always a
    good best practice
    ... if there is a publisher who does not use the standard
    format, a third party can come along and do the transformation

    eparsons: can we close that issue?
    ... pass it on to the best practices requirements

    <phila> PROPOSED: Close issue-70 that we need to pass this on
    to BP to handle, encouraging publishers' need to meet broadest
    possible community

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    RESOLUTION: Close issue-70 that we need to pass this on to BP
    to handle, encouraging publishers' need to meet broadest
    possible community

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <AZ> +1


    <phila> close issue-70

    <trackbot> Closed issue-70.

    <phila> issue-74?

    <trackbot> issue-74 -- That uom and precision and accuracy
    should be covered in ucr and bp (and respected in other
    deliverables too) -- open

    <trackbot> [25]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/74

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/74

    frans: issue-74
    ... current proposal is to have unit of measurements should
    always be included in observations

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to dig into "unit of measurements
    should always be included in observations"

    phila: dwbp, uom should be included, but not in the string, but
    as a separate attribute

    danbri: in schema.org we have some workarounds
    ... space between $ and price, but it is not a best practice as

    eparsons: wouldn't the uom not be part of the metadata of the

    kerry: it is very particular kind of metadata. If you have
    spatial data and you don't have the uom, it is useless. So it
    is essential metadata.

    <AndreaPerego> There's an example in DQV on the use of UoMs for
    data accuracy and precision:

      [26] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#ExpressDatasetAccuracyPrecision

    <phila> PROPOSED: That it is q requirement to have UoM included

    <eparsons> +1

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <billrobe_> +1


    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    RESOLUTION: That it is a requirement to have UoM included,
    close issue-74

    <kerry> +1

    <phila> close issue-74

    <trackbot> Closed issue-74.

    <frans> issue 74 proposal 1: We expand CRS definition
    requirement a bit to make it clear that a CRS definition should
    include an indication of UoM. For instance:

    <frans> "There should be a recommended way of referencing a
    Coordinate Reference System (CRS) with a HTTP URI, and to get
    useful data about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced. The
    CRS data should include the unit of measurement of the CRS."

    <frans> issue 74 proposal 2: We add a new requirement:

    <frans> "The use of precision that matches uncertainty in
    coordinate data should be facilitated and encouraged"


    <trackbot> issue-76 -- New requirement for multiple CRSs? --

    <trackbot> [27]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76

    <phila> issue-76?

    <trackbot> issue-76 -- New requirement for multiple CRSs? --

    <trackbot> [28]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76

      [28] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76

    jtandy: there is no requirement to have multiple CRSs, but data
    should be accessible, which could be multiple CRSs

    kerry: it is same as issue-70

    <ericP> issue-70

    <trackbot> issue-70 -- Add a requirement for avoiding
    coordinate transformations? -- closed

    <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70

    jtandy: geojson does not support multiple representations of
    the same data
    ... so you split data out in different representations

    ericP: 70 says to minimise transformations, 76 is a solution to
    ... rephrase 76 to make it a requirement

    frans: to publish multiple CRS can have different reasons, i.e.
    to follow standards, not just to make it easier for users

    <kerry> +1 to eric's comment -- make sure issue 70 is just
    phrased right

    eparsons: close 76 and it is 70, but rephrased

    frans: publishing in multiple CRS is already a practice, but
    they don't know what the best practice is

    <phila> PROPOSED: Issue-76 is close enough to issue-70 that we
    can cover it in the way we closed 70, although there is a
    difference in perspective

    eparsons: close enough, they will both be covered in best
    practices document

    <phila> PROPOSED: There are cases where there is a requirement
    for more than one CRS, so we can close issue-76

    <eparsons> +1

    <RaulGarciaCastro> +1

    <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

    <jtandy> +1


    <ClemensPortele> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> _1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    RESOLUTION: There are cases where there is a requirement for
    more than one CRS, so we can close issue-76

    <phila> close issue-76

    <trackbot> Closed issue-76.

    <eparsons> Coffee break back at 10:30 local - 15mins form now

    <eparsons> Slowly returning...

    <kerry> scribe: kerry

    <scribe> scribenick: kerry

    <RaulGarciaCastro> I’ll come back after lunch

    <ByronCinNZ> Yes

    <jtandy> BTW: the summary of SDW bps is here -

      [30] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary

    <jtandy> agenda for the BP session is here

      [31] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4#Monday

    jtandy: topic: best practice
    ... we don't have time to cover all 17 issues. please help to
    ... thankyou for all the expert opinion so far -- but tricky to
    distil into workable bps
    ... linda nad I have bben working hard on this but it is harder
    than we expected
    ... abd we have less time to devote going forward
    ... we can still do edit and style and steer and rank, but we
    need WG members to own sections of the doc (a BP)

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about engagement

    jtandy: think of this as you can volunteer for a BP topic

    phila: people read the doc getting close to publication , as i
    have on the plane here
    ... see kadvice from bernadette

    bernadette: one person read the whole doc at a very late point
    and made a *lot* of comments which were helpful but took a long
    time to process
    ... it is really important if people read the details before
    the last minute ..
    ... we had text that had been there right through that then got
    questioned right at the end.
    ... we had to have meetings on specific points that were
    raised, the doc got much better
    ... but it is important to read t he details asap is better

    jtandy: and specific targeted meetins with the person raising
    the issue

    bernadette: also good was f2f to foucs

    jtandy: and you got the WG to comment on particular BPs, but it
    all comes in a rush at the end

    phila: in theory we need to every thing finalised right now --
    time is running out

    jtandy: until 12:30 need to shake down best practices -- which
    are the least clear and/or most important?
    ... linda is preparing a tally -- which has top priority to
    nominate of the 17?

    clemens: bp 1, bp 7, a missing one on using complex iso models
    and how to translate to rdf json and others -- how do we advise
    data publishers on this?

    ClemensPortele: is there a simple solution? Needed for inspire.

    billrobe_: 4, 7, 8

    eparsons: 4, 7 ,14

    BartvanLeeuwen: 4,7,14

    AndreaPerego: terminology: spatial thing, features, and its
    effect on the draft ontology

    <eparsons> Note hadleybeeman


    AndreaPerego: 7

    frans: 8 and 9

    Linda: 4, 7, 8

    jtandy: 9 (fuzzy boundaries),, 7, something on crowdsourcing

    <Linda> any voters on webex?

    hadleybeeman: process question: are you planning

    jtandy: we plan to point to implementations in the wild -- but
    we may have trouble finding some

    hadleybeeman: are you separating existing form not yet

    jtandy: we expect to indicate that -- things will not be
    "proper best practices" if not implemented in the wild

    ByronCinNZ: 3, 4, 9 but if we are doing 3 anyway i vote for
    formats (8)

    <ByronCinNZ> Yes 8

    AZ: 7

    jtandy: so we will do top 4.

    Linda: 7, 4, 8, 9

    jtandy: 20 minutes on each

    <jtandy> [32]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

      [32] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

    <phila> [33]BP7

      [33] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

    jtandy: pls read the bp for number 7 now
    ... there is also a meeting thread

    <jtandy> see email summary for BP 7:


    <jtandy> ahh - that was the top of the thread ... I'm finding
    the summary now

    <jtandy> summary =


BP number 7 [36]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

      [36] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

    eparsons: need some context, e.g. explaining that now you need
    to publish stuff at a finer granularity that you are used to
    ... when we publish we need that every thing/feature/atomoc
    piece needs an identifier

    <jtandy> [37]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#how-to-use

      [37] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#how-to-use

    jtandy: I was trying to to unpack that conecept here
    ... so here's your starting point

      [38] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#how-to-use

    <ByronCinNZ> Lost audio

    [phone dropped out ... messing around trying to fix]

    <ByronCinNZ> Thanks

    <jtandy> and the identifiers context is provided here:

      [39] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#what-r-u-talking-about

    <AZ> audio back

    <ByronCinNZ> Cheers

    jtandy: ... in irs is link to what are u talking about --
    context for identifying -- is that the context we need?

    eparsons: yes, but we need bits of it restated again within the
    relevant bp presenation: this will be very new for SDI audience
    although old hat for web people
    ... will laso apply to other BPs where a fundamental change is

    <Zakim> ClemensPortele, you wanted to talk about "Reuse
    identifiers when you can"

    ClemensPortele: reuse identifiers when you can -- how is this
    going to work?

    e.g using dppedia or geonames for the uir, but i want to
    publish something else -- if you retirve the uri you will not
    come to my information that i am publishing


    ClemensPortele: so my publishing will still be dark becuase
    noone will come to it

    Linda: responding to ed -- is the "why" section of bp not good
    ... e.g. BP 7 starts with heading "Why". What is missing?

    eparsons: the granularity in particular, not just and enpoint
    for a wfs, but every object there

    Linda: so if you are used to using wfs -- this is how it is

    eparsons: addressed to particular users -- highlght how this is
    going to be different for you.

    jtandy: examples will help with this

    billrobe_: on ClemensPortele point about identifiers,
    ... it depends on your data model and say you are doing
    datacube you do want someeone else's identifier so that you can
    ... one very useful case is the n-ary relations wheret ehe
    place is the object of the statement

    <danbri> hmm
    [40]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeaton%27s_Tower "Smeaton's
    Tower is the third and most notable Eddystone Lighthouse." ->
    [41]https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3995634 50°21'51.8"N,
    4°8'30.5"W vs
    [42]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddystone_Lighthouse ->
    [43]https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q546122 50°10'48"N, 4°16'12"W

      [40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeaton's_Tower
      [41] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3995634
      [42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddystone_Lighthouse
      [43] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q546122

    ByronCinNZ: in realtion to data on the we bp, in our case we
    need the spatial things themselves

    jtandy: dwbp has 2 cases, , thes second is item-level

    phila: adwbp a lot of the examples use it as well
    ... noone is going to store full uris as a waste of space -- it
    may not be stored as a uri but must be translatable to one

    ericP: could be a relative URI so properly managed

    AndreaPerego: responding to phila , in geospatial catalogues we
    have unique uids, these can be added to a base uri, is this ok?

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask about syntax (e.g. json-ld
    would allow foo:bar qualified names, other contexts allow gzip,

    danbri: what syntax ? can have different abbreviations
    depending on sytax
    ... can rely on storage tool

    <danbri> another e.g. if you're in an XHTML regime you could
    use entities; in JSON-LD qnames or however JSON-LD calls
    qualified names.

    eparsons: so the best approach is syntax-specific, but the
    general idea is the same and we need to force the issue

    jtandy: content we are heading the right direction
    ... billrobe_ what are you specific issues?

    billrobe_: BP mostly covers it ... item 3 "stable identifiers"
    is a complex modelling problem to decide if it does change
    (e.g. boundaries change and sometimes that is critical) but
    this is covered in bp as it is

    BartvanLeeuwen: agree with clemes becuase need a uri that
    resolves to what I want to say about it, and the way I want it

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to panic a little

    AZ: bp 7 is very important but i do not have a specific concern

    Linda: we discussed indirect identifiers in mailing list which
    was almost resolved and should go here

    phila: want to hear from dan, erric, hadley on this
    ... you do not want to use a goenames uri as the subject in
    your rdf?

    ClemensPortele: yes, but not necessarily rdf -- i want my
    representation to be the target of resolultion

    phila: ok, so you don't want geonames to be the response -- so
    should we recomment owl:sameas?
    ... can we use owl:sameAs?
    ... so maybe 3 people all point to anne frank's house

    AndreaPerego: the point is also about provenance to know who is
    saying what, maybe this solves that

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to discuss owl:sameAs being a very
    strong claim

    ericP: don't want sameas as as it is not the same thing just in
    the same place
    ... want to addreess use case of a location and you need to
    make a decision -- you invent more predicates

    danbri: what eric just said
    ... sameas is almost like swearing
    ... e.g. whiioch poland? and smeaton's tower is it hte same as
    edystone lighthouse?

    phila: but there is aconnection and we want that reoirded

    <AndreaPerego> Wonder whether rdfs:seeAlso could to the job
    instead of owl:sameAs?

    eparsons: so anne franks house in my database (BP 14 and 15)
    linking my datababse of houses in amsterdam with bart's
    database of fires in amsterdam

    <danbri> seeAlso is pretty weak, owl:sameAs is super strong,
    there are things also like skos mappings that sit along the
    spectrum between those

    eparsons: I need to say that I have a consistent uri within my
    database (reuse is elsewhere)

    hadleybeeman: but "reuse identifiers" is in here!

    ClemensPortele: we have a different understanding of reuse

    <eparsons> kerry : duty to create predicate "sameplace"

    <ericP> kerry: i believe it is our duty to construct a
    predicate that captures samePlaceAs

    ClemensPortele: bp 14 is establishing the links,, and that is
    different from...

    <frans> sameplace could be one of the spatial relationships we
    need to have defined

    ClemensPortele: we shouln't just look at OWL e.g. geosjson,
    e.g. scheam.org sameAs

    eparsons: call for wap of scribes

    phila: please read DWBP best practice 10 as it contradicts us

    hadleybeeman: yes!

    <phila> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

    hadleybeeman: If I understand you correctly, people are asying
    that they don't want to use other people's identifiers because
    you want to make your own statements about things

    BartvanLeeuwen: One of the issues we have is, are we too
    ... If you put a spatial thing on a map, and people want to
    click it, then people can find out more.
    ... I want to create a page that says Anne Frank's house is on
    fire that it has interesting shutters etc.

    hadleybeeman: But you're saying you want an ID for the fire at
    Anne Frank's House

    jtandy: So Bart describes an incident that happens and Ed is
    describing the shutters..

    hadleybeeman: Draws diagram of the house, its fire and its
    ... But they're both about the same place

    <ByronCinNZ> Yes I am here

    hadleybeeman: You need diff IDs for the incident and the
    shutters but they're both about the same thing and for that we
    say use the same URI

    billrobe_: Agrees with hadleybeeman and gives example. Also,
    we're not only in the RDF world, so the majrity of use cases
    work well with using some definitive ID for Anne Frank's House
    ... I can deliver my info about Amsterdam as HTML and RDF...

    <hadleybeeman> Or CSV

    <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that reuse identifiers is
    always great. also complicated, also worth reminding people,
    but creating the abstract relationships ducks the controversy.

    jtandy: And then maybe use schema:sameAs

    ericP: Some perspective... every BP in every environment says
    use URIs as IDs but the zeroth law is don't lie
    ... A little bit of ontology that allows you to say 'same
    location as' - people get to reuse IDs there. They're not
    encouraged to reuse IDs where they shouldn't
    ... Also get to avoid complex conversations...
    ... Coming up with hard and fast rules about saying two
    incidents are the same is very hard
    ... You don't want to get into worrying about why two things
    are the same

    ahaller2: Eric said what I wanted to say. Same location as is
    the only predicate we need.

    ClemensPortele: I'm worried about this strong 'same'. Many
    things in a map will have IDs, and finding 'the canonical
    identifier' is nigh on impossible and no one will do it.
    ... A more relaxed linkage is good

    jtandy: I think we're concluding that we need a more relaxed
    relationship for this. Maybe this is a missing BP
    ... We're saying that if you want to relate two things as being
    in the same place, we should show how to do it without
    necessarily using the same ID.

    eparsons: I think that's BP 14 or 15, not 7

    <danbri> proposal:
    766f (too long for IRC :)

      [44] https://gist.github.com/danbri/12cbbdb26cfa25a5bc6ac2060788766f

    frans: Spatial same as - in spatial data, we talk about spatial
    things and geometries. You have a well established system for
    saying geometries are the same

    <kerry> +1 to frans remark

    frans: Maybe we need a set of relationships for spatial things

    jtandy: So the predicate that Kerry suggested... some sort of
    geometric calculus?

    kerry: No, some sort of (non-computable) spatial relations.

    <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask if "best practice" (vs
    normative spec) allows for this kind of fuzziness already

    kerry: You know we talked about backlinks? This is where I
    think it's relevant

    hadleybeeman: I hear you discussing this BP and it sounds as if
    you agree but you're looking for edge cases where it doesn't
    work. Does this being a Note help to allow some fuzziness?

    jtandy: In GeoSPARQL - OGC is creating an ontology for this

    hadleybeeman: Butr you're writing BPs which doesn't need to be
    as precise as a Rec

    kerry: I don't think they're edge cases, they're normal

    BernadetteLoscio: When you're talking about datasets and the
    items within them, the item is Anne Frank's house? Not stuff
    within it?

    jtandy: Anne Frank's house could have a point, 2 or 3 D polygon

    [More discussion of IDs for Anne Frank's House]

    <hadleybeeman> [and assertions about Anne Frank's House]

    -> [45]http://sws.geonames.org/6618987/ Anne Frank's House

      [45] http://sws.geonames.org/6618987/


      [46] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#indexable-by-search-engines

    <danbri> "Search engines should receive a metadata response to
    a HTTP GET when dereferencing the link target URI." … what is a
    link target URI?

    billrobe_: We spent a lot of time talking about creating
    precise machine readable data about things that, AFAIK, search
    engines are ignoring.
    ... schema.org might be a route to providing something useful
    for search?
    ... Is there sometehing already in place that we can use in our

    jtandy: We've suggested that schema.org provides a vocab that
    helps search engines index things like schema:Place
    ... Does that help search engines answer questions like find
    coffee shops near here?

    danbri: Potentially
    ... schema.org works because it sits on top of what was in
    place already.
    ... RDF tried to build a parallel Web that ignored the existing
    billions of pages.
    ... If you express your data in schema.org, there's no
    guarantee it'll be used.
    ... I don't understand what a link target URI is?

    jtandy: For a URL, if you defref a URL, you should get back an
    HTML page that might have embedded data
    ... but the granularity might change. You want a URL for
    everything in a WFS

    ClemensPortele: That exists already

    jtandy: But it's not crawlable

    danbri: A lot of sites used to hide things behind HTTP POST
    ... I think the same thing happened around SDIs - things are
    hidden. You need to make a Web page, make sure robots.txt
    doesn't exclude it etc.
    ... Don't treat it as a special universe.

    billrobe_: Makes sense, but it's not often practiced.

    danbri: Content negotiation is a tricky one. Se Web loves it

    ericP: JSON likes it
    ... It's a problem if the data is too large

    ClemensPortele: In the Geonovum test, what we did was what we
    said here. We ctreated an HTML paghe for every resource that we
    had and included schema.org in that.
    ... the tricky part
    ... theoretically it's a BP, in the real world it's not
    ... We could't really argue that it made a big impact
    ... If we look at reviews, it's definitely a BP. But not really
    for everything.

    ByronCinNZ: I feel like it's tryiung to say too much
    ... There's a lot in there that I find contentious-ish. A BP on
    fail metadata, well that's about keeping metadata up to date.
    ... Maybe it could be more succicnt. What actually is the
    ... Some BPs have really good examples
    ... could be more direct and more usable.

    <danbri> for Google's use, see also
    businesses (opening hours oriented),

      [48] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/events

    frans: Should this BP not simply say, make HTML models of the
    data you provide?
    ... It you at least make HTML pages you've made progress on
    making your data search engine searchable.
    ... The other thing is linkage between the thing and the
    ... I imagine a SE requests a page, looks for links and then
    follows those links
    ... What's required is a link from the data to the metadata and
    then links within that. Maybe to subsets and other subsets

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to discuss w3c instruments

    <ericP> [49][media-types] Review request for
    application/geo+json-seq media type registration

      [49] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=media-types

    Linda: Like a sitemap

    ClemensPortele: But sitemaps are limited to 25K links
    ... We had 8 million addresses

    Linda: It can be paged

    danbri: Is the word 'Best' correct. W3C likes to attract people
    to try out new stuff. It seems a lot of what we're talking
    about is new.
    ... I spend a lot of time trying to get people to make use of
    schema.org data.
    ... If all we can write is BPs then we're limited. If we can
    say emerging practice we perhaps can go further

    eparsons: There's a heirarchy of BPs. There are simple things
    you can do, like exposing what's behind your WFS. Next step is
    to create HTML pages, next step is to add in structured data

    <ericP> i believe hierarchies like this are expressed on coffee

    eparsons: i.e. take a stepwise approach. BPs can be

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask "is something _on the web_ if
    search engines can't see it?"

    <danbri> I was just reviewing [50]https://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/
    Mobile Web Application Best Practices (2010). A lot of it is
    both precise and has survived the test of time. It updates even
    earlier work,
    ion_best_practices_is_2 from
    [52]https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ (2008). Earliest I can
    find is [53]https://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-mobile-bp-20051017/

      [50] https://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/
      [52] https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
      [53] https://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-mobile-bp-20051017/

    jtandy: Is it on the web only if search engines can't see it?
    They only look at webpages

    danbri: Nope, images, etc.

    jtandy: Is the BP more along the lines of creating a human
    readable page and then maybe a structured version

    eparsons: WxS isn't on the Web, it's on the dark Web

    jtandy: If we want our data to be on the Web, people should be
    able to find it with a normal browser. Better still using some
    structured data as well (schema.org)

    <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about how this works
    for browser standards

    jtandy: if we can encourage people to do that then the SEs
    might start to use it.

    <eparsons> zakim close queue

    jtandy: I think we've made progress with BP4, yes

    phila: It's consistent with DWBP's advice on making (meta)data
    human and machine readable

Best Practice 8: Provide geometries on the Web in a usable way

    -> [54]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#describe-geometry BP8

      [54] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#describe-geometry

    jtandy: Proposes to take 60 mins for lunch
    ... Then we can pick up BP8
    ... Rather than try and rush it in 8 mins

    hadleybeeman: On Best/Emerging practices...

    <eparsons> Lunch at 12:30 - will be back at 13:30

    hadleybeeman: We've been discussing this a lot in the TAG and
    whether W3C is where standards are created or ratified
    ... What the HTML Web Browser world is that for any new idea,
    they want it hammered out in a Community Group.
    ... They'll form a group within the Web Incubator Community
    ... So that by the time it's in a WG it's already in the wild
    ... Then WGs aren't working from scratch

    [Discussion around future work, life of the WG etc.]

    Discussion of difference between OGC and W3C in terms of end of
    work for WGs. OGC's carry on indefinitely, even in dormant, W3C
    has to start again

    danbri: Can it transition to a CG

    phila: Yes of course

    <eparsons> Lunchtime everyone

    [Adjourned for lunch]

    <eparsons> Slowly returning from lunch...

    <jtandy> so ... we're just restarting ...

    <jtandy> in the room we've decided to try to complete the
    discussion on BP7 about "indirect identification" ... see
    summary of email thread at


    <eparsons> Webex back I hope - can you hear us ByronCinNZ ?

    <ByronCinNZ> Yes

    <eparsons> Perfect thx

    <ByronCinNZ> Will be jumping over to Orlando shortly for the
    DCAT metadata OGC. Will return after

    <jtandy> for ref, see


    <billroberts> scribe:billroberts

    <scribe> scribenick:billroberts

Indirect Identifiers

    <DanhLePhuoc> pressent+ DanhLePhuoc

    jtandy: summarises the ideas of 'Indirect Identification' based
    on the link above
    ... do people recognise this practice as useful and something
    that happens a lot?

    <eparsons> billroberts Has not experienced any issues with
    indirect identification

    <eparsons> billroberts metadata solves Last updated problem

    danbri: schema.org has a vocabulary that is quite agnostic. You
    could use that rigorously in terms of differentiating
    identifiers and documents about them

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to say two things: forcing thing vs
    page-about-it distinction everywhere comes with costs (for
    publishers and consumers); muddling up things with their

    danbri: but you can also use it 'scruffily', using a web page
    about say Brad Pitt as a way of referring to Brad Pitt
    ... it was found to be hard to get the idea of distinguising
    web address and identifier to developers. It would be possible
    if there was a distinct benefit, but that probably isn't hte
    case. There isn't the incentive at the moment
    ... there is a cost to enforcing the distinction, and there is
    a cost to mixing them up. So you have to weigh up the pros and

    <roba> hi - joined via webex but its behaving differently - not
    hearing anything and it offering a video session, no mic mute

    jtandy: can we say that it's common practice to conflate the
    identifier and the document, and that's ok?

    eparsons: we can say it's common practice for sure

    kerry: but should we endorse it?

    phila: it becomes a problem to use an indirect reference, if
    you use it in the wrong way
    ... eg to say the mountain is 374kb, but if you are saying
    something sensible in that context, then it causes no problems
    ... this is a widely used approach and it generally doesnt'
    cause problems

    AndreaPerego: if your use case doesn't need the distinction,
    then don't do it

    <danbri> All I was going to say: at this relatively early
    stage, when a given thing doesn't have a lot of machine
    readable Web descriptions, strict separation of
    thing-vs-description identifier is overkill. But once we have
    more adoption it may prove increasingly valuable.

    <eparsons> billroberts depends upon context - relies on human -
    but thats ok

    <phila> billroberts: We're agreeing that it depends on context
    and we're relying on the human operator to apply that context

    <roba> q

    <DanhLePhuoc> +q

    frans: we can probably assume that people won't generally be
    confused about spatial things - i.e. they won't think it's a

    ClemensPortele: but we then may need to distinguish Spatial
    Thing and Feature?

    kerry: how do we convey to a user of the data what we mean by a

    roba: one use case is citing an object. In that case you want
    an identifier for the thing, not a representation of it. If the
    data provider wants his representation to be cited, then you
    might have to make the distinction
    ... one possible way to do that is the URI redirection

    jtandy: do you mean something like a 303 redirect to a WFS

    roba: doesn't matter too much what you redirect to, you can
    just use the test on whether it is redirected or not
    ... it's like referencing a geometry not a feature

    jtandy: tries to summarise and play back Rob's point. If you do
    redirect, you've separated out the thing and the representation

    roba: not quite as strong as that.
    ... if it doesn't redirect, you could tell that the URL is not
    safe to be an identifier

    jtandy: how much context do we need? how to express it?

    roba: one approach is to get the context by dereferencing it,
    but I don't think we can say that is a best practice

    jtandy: so, as Dan says, we're all blundering around

    DanhLePhuoc: a data snippet can be valid and useful without
    having an http URI
    ... so could use non-http identifiers (URNs eg)

    jtandy: I think we want to recommend HTTP identifiers, even if
    they don't resolve on the web

    DanhLePhuoc: using identifiers that are not HTTP means that you
    don't have the cost of setting up a web server to allow

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about dumb strings

    phila: URIs should be treated as dumb strings, you can't infer
    any meaning from them

    <eparsons> billroberts redirects not practical for mass market

    kerry: also uncomfortable about using the redirect behaviour as
    a way of inferring context

    roba: I think that's ok, but a best practice should be to use
    redirects. If you are using a representation URL you need to be
    clear it's not an identifier

    jtandy: trying to summarise - you shouldn't be obliged to
    separate identifier and document, unless you see a good reason
    to do so

    roba: a good reason to do so is to make it clear to users

    jtandy: will park the discussion on Spatial Thing and Feature

Bart's demonstration of linking to WFS

    BartvanLeeuwen: we're working for emergency services in
    cross-border or cross-discipline contexts
    ... there is more and more spatial data being shared between
    these partners in ad hoc ways
    ... For example, water boards collaborating with fire
    departments on flood evacuation plans
    ... The water board is opening up its SDI for the fire
    ... For example the fire department comes across information
    about a critical section of a dike (i.e. high risk of a flood)
    ... misinterpretation between the two organisations of what was
    meant by 'critical'. Water board had a different idea to the
    fire department
    ... [Bart shows a GIS WFS system with attributes of objects on
    the map]
    ... so we suggest having a rdf:seeAlso attribute on all WFS
    systems, to link to a place to store more information
    ... Fire department is happy with an extra column in their
    system, but don't want to worry about supporting all kinds of
    ... following the seeAlso link goes to a Linked Data page about
    the thing, which in turn can link to definitions of concepts
    and other terminology
    ... so this is a simple and generic way of linking a WFS to a
    Linked Data representation of the objects
    ... We use standard linked data principles for dereferencing
    the URIs to get data
    ... Example showing a map of an incident, with icons to
    represent different situations, (eg a flaming icon to indicate
    a fire)
    ... this approach allows icons to be connected to definitions
    of what they mean
    ... and makes it possible to swap in different sets of icons
    for the same meaning, to make it familiar to someone from a
    different organisation
    ... From the opposite perspective, there is currently no
    standard way to link from the Linked Data representation to the
    feature on the map

    ClemensPortele: there could be just a WFS request that returns
    the feature

    BartvanLeeuwen: Jeremy and I have discussed this as a possible
    best practice

    jtandy: so in essence, you are supplementing an existing SDI by
    putting one column in the database that links to a Linked Data
    representation, where all the semantic integration can take
    place - but you can still display it on a map
    ... beautiful in its simplicity
    ... (1) (maybe controversial) web mapping is explicitly out of
    scope - is this web mapping?

    consensus: no this isn't web mapping, it's about linkability

    jtandy: (2) I'm minded of discussions back in Amersfoort, where
    billroberts mentioned some hybrid approaches using triple
    stores alongside other things
    ... Bart's work seems a similar kind of thing

    <roba> re embedding a link, of course the issue is whether the
    uri should be for a specific information resource or for an id
    which should dereference :-) There's your use case to consider

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to say yay

    jtandy: this seems to fit under the heading of data access -
    different ways of getting to the info

    danbri: many examples that we were talking about earlier were
    very sparse, so not much benefit for the effort. This seems
    much more obviously beneficial as you can link together lots of
    things all at once

    frans: can understand the perspective of the water boards on
    not wanting to do lots of work on detailed definition. But
    there is software that makes setting up a WFS pretty easy. If
    people act on our BPs then maybe publishing the supporting data
    will be easy in future too

    Linda: thinking about how to fit this into the document. Is
    this a new BP, or a possible approach to implementing an
    existing BP?
    ... could maybe fit in BP11 about convenience APIs?

    eparsons: this is more about the linkability best practice

    roba: although I couldn't see the demo, I think I got the idea:
    this is a general use case of embedding a link to information
    about an object in another context
    ... so what kind of link do you embed in your data? a link to
    an identifier or another resource?
    ... probably need a standard practice here so that people know
    what to expect. It should probably be the identifier
    ... in that case the identifier can then link to various
    representations. Otherwise the implementer has to make a choice
    of which kind of representation to link to

    phila: points out that in Bart's example, there is both
    information about the thing and information about the document
    about the thing. So this example makes the distinction between
    thing and representation

    ClemensPortele: this example is mainly about easy data access.
    In QGIS you just have a string about the attribute. In the LD
    version, you can link off to definitions of the terminology

    <roba> do you want t force all WFS to use exactly the same set
    of choices as to how to link to different resources and
    additional information - or make that the URI dereferencing

    ClemensPortele: it doesn't naturally fit in one of the existing
    best practices
    ... not sure if it's 'best' or 'common' or 'emerging'

    <roba> best does not imply common, but if common works its
    probably "best". Where "common" is missing or doesnt meet
    identified needs best is closer to "good"

    billroberts: I think it probably fits into our existing best
    practices on linkability and on making links

    ClemensPortele: it's important to make it self-descriptive

    Linda: maybe there is a DWBP we could link to

    phila: point of process. Is there anything proprietary in
    Bart's work?

    BartvanLeeuwen: no

    <roba> its obviously about linkability - and if the practice
    link is to something via a URI that dereferences to a document
    that provides metadata, then it meets several BP cases

    BartvanLeeuwen: would like documentation of which attribute to
    use for this, to try to make it more standardised

    jtandy: different applications might require different data
    ... so not sure we should specify always rdf:seeAlso or

    <BernadetteLoscio> I think is this one:

      [57] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel

    eparsons: this is good because you don't need to do anything
    difficult but has many benefits

    <ClemensPortele> scribe: ClemensPortele

    <scribe> scribenick: ClemensPortele

    jtandy: next topics: General BP issues, Narrative, Plan for
    next draft

Are we meeting the needs of practitioners- if not, how can we

    jtandy: not writing BPs for managers, but for those doing the
    ... are we meeting the needs?

    frans: No. Related to BP on geometry, etc. Many options to
    choose from, but no real guidance how to do things

    jtandy: agrees, we don't say how to make the choice
    ... Unlikely there is a single choice that fits everywhere.
    Example: GeoJSON.
    ... Struggles how to introduce the questions to ask yourself in
    the BP text.

    frans: Can we also identify the characteristics a good format

    jtandy: Probably difficult, depends on the perspective and use
    case. Support for one or multiple CRS is an example.

    eparsons: We may be meeting the needs of the wrong
    partitioners, ie. the GIS community, less the "Web community"
    ... distinguish implementation recommendations / options based
    on the specific needs
    ... what meets the 99% of the cases, let's make that the

    Linda: are Web developers still in the audience, not so clear
    from the current text

    (yes they are)

    ByronCinNZ: A couple of things that may be missing:
    ... wider meaning of spatial beyond geospatial (but not really
    addressed in the text)
    ... clarify gaps that are relevant for bridging between SDI and
    Web developer community, e.g. spatial accuracy depending on the

    jtandy: I.e., provide more help on how to pick the right

    ByronCinNZ: Yes

    jtandy: Any similar topics?

    eparsons: Publish a raster or vector data?

    billroberts: responds to frans "what is a good format"
    question: what will likely be used. So probably providing
    multiple options, e.g. GeoJSON for Leaflet and Shapefile for
    their GIS
    ... publish once, use many times

    frans: happy to read in the current BP to focus on the use of
    the data and keep the users in mind
    ... points to limited choice of data types, which is currently
    missing for geometry
    ... we should work towards a single way of expressing geometry
    ... Also, current text is too much about geospatial data, less
    useful for use cases like architecture / BIM etc.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to pick up on non-geo spatial

    phila: content depends on contributors. Asks Chris from the BIM
    domain ...

    Chis(?): Welcomes guidance. CRS guidance relevant and different
    CRSs will be used (e.g. inside the building). There are open
    questions how to do this best.

    phila: Probably GeoFencing group did not consider the case
    where the CRS changes between two different polygons.

    BartvanLeeuwen: Have we outreached to the "Web developer"
    community and asked them, if it is useful what we are doing?

    phila: Trying to reach as many people and communities as

    eparsons: Yes, what we do depends on the people who turn up

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about this evening

      [58] http://www.meetup.com/GeeksIn-Lisbon/events/233972259/

    dmckenzie: We need to identify and contact the communities
    where we want feedback. Can use OGC communications channels.

    <phila> [59]Dev Meetup this evening

      [59] http://www.meetup.com/GeeksIn-Lisbon/events/233972259/

    phila: that might have been an opportunity to pitch our work
    and get feedback

    dmckenzie: many of these will be very regional, so hard to
    cover this broadly

    billroberts: the extra day at Amersfoort may be a good example
    to follow

    dmckenzie: OGC University DWG may be a channel for outreach
    ... or other DWGs that link to larger communities

    <eparsons> coffee break until 14:50

    <eparsons> coffee break until 15:50 sorry

"How do we kick the RDF habit?"

    jtandy: you can use Linked Data in many representations, not
    just using RDF

    frans: since SDWBP is an extension of DWBP, how is DWBP?

    <ByronCinNZ> audio please. Sounds like an interesting

    jtandy: not heavy, but many of the examples use RDF

    kerry: use of link type registry is one example that can help
    as it is general

    jtandy: yes, publish semantics in the registry of IANA
    ... temporal relationships there is a proposal discussed with
    Simon Cox
    ... spatial relationships - there has been no feedback on which
    of the options to use
    ... on topology, direction, distance

    <kerry> +1 in principle

    (general agreement)

    <AndreaPerego> IANA Link Relations:

      [60] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

    Linda: but we need to agree on the list

    AndreaPerego: have checked, if anything is there?

    jtandy: Yes, nothing there

    AndreaPerego: May introduce overhead on the publisher side. But
    has advantage that it can also be used directly in HTML

    jtandy: Whatever we do, there will be some burden on the
    publisher, currently it simply is just no option that a
    publisher could use

    AndreaPerego: maybe the profile link relation could be an

    kerry: it is important to capture the more informal spatial
    relationships that are used on the social level

    <AndreaPerego> Definition of the "profile" link relation (from
    IANA registry): "Identifying that a resource representation
    conforms to a certain profile, without affecting the
    non-profile semantics of the resource representation."

    kerry: ie the topological ones are not the most important ones
    ... focus on those that are used in common language

    frans: why do we want to "kick the RDF habit"?

    <ByronCinNZ> audio please

    jtandy: if we focus on RDF people would quickly conclude the
    document does not apply to them

    Linda: we have a link to the Linked Data BP this document
    becomes very RDF centric

    <roba> using RDF is a practice - perhaps best for some things
    but not the only option.

    jtandy: two schools of people, a) Linked Data must use RDF and
    b) takes a more relaxed position. Like the BP document...
    ... Need to use examples that are based on other approaches,
    GML, GeoJSON, maybe OData, etc

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to comment on Fransis's point

    AndreaPerego: Just to say that link relations are already used
    in HTML documents, e.g., to link to stylesheets. So, this makes
    it easier to use them to express also other relationships.

    BartvanLeeuwen: Mention of RDF is a religious thing. People
    reject something just based on the reference to RDF

    BernadetteLoscio: DWBP had similar discussion. Introduction has
    discussion of the relationship and avoid specific focus. But
    many examples are in ttl.

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to discuss RDF

    danbri: Have used RDF in other groups, but without making a big
    fuss about it

    <jtandy> BP doc tries to present no bias to RDF here:

      [61] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#linked-data

    frans: having other examples is a good idea and the Linked Data
    text should state that it is not abut RDF

    jtandy: Chapter 7 already does this, see link above

    billroberts: you want web identifiers and you want linking,
    then you are nearly at RDF

    <eparsons> ClemensPortele : RDF point was mine - current draft

    eparsons: Both the GIS and Web developer communities consider
    RDF a "nasty beast". So not highlighting RDF will help
    communicating the BP

    jtandy: general consensus and going in the right direction
    ... how can we address kerrys point about the spatial
    relations. Can someone propose a list of spatial relationships?

    phila: can we just register the ones from GeoSPARQL?

    jtandy: Which of the three sets?
    ... and these are only the topological ones

    eparsons: The directional and distance related ones are more of
    a challenge

    kerry: Some of them are context dependent (near/far)

    <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask about wikipedia infoboxes

    ericP: could the wikipedia boxes provide any insight?


    jtandy: is there a link to more information?



    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about IANA Links don't need
    to be in a W3C standard, and to ask DanBri whether he can help

    phila: topological ones could easily be added by contacting
    IANA / Mark Nottingham to add them
    ... for the others, is there something that we can point to?

    danbri: we could also add them to schema.org

    phila: how widely implemented are the relationships?

    eparsons: typically widely implemented by GIS, so we would need
    to analyse what has been implemented in tools

    <Zakim> billroberts, you wanted to ask about progress on
    relating things to geometry

    <ericP> +1 to dim[B(a)∩I(b)]=1&<arg(x∨x_) ˚͜˚

    jtandy: and how do we identify the directional /
    distance-related ones? any sources to use as a basis?

    billroberts: related to the work on the spatial ontology
    ... can schema.org help?

    danbri: there are existing properties that relate objects to

    PROPOSED: submit topological GeoSPARQL Simple Feature relations
    to the IANA link relation registry.

    frans: there could a difference between the spatial relation of
    spatial things or their geometries

    eparsons: the topological ones depend on the existence of
    ... ... the topological ones are always computable from the

    ericP: and how about the more fuzzy relationships

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Young's Calculus

    DanhLePhuoc: (sorry, I missed that)

    phila: if we have the list of well-defined relationships for
    topo ones, should we do this for the temporal ones (Allan's
    calculus), too?

    <DanhLePhuoc> there is some relationship can be calculate
    without geometric information, for instance, located in, part
    of, can be computed via transitive reasoning

    jtandy: I can make topologial assertions without geometry.

    <danbri> phila, see "We don't nitpic about whether they're
    alive, dead, real, or imaginary. " in

      [63] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person

    eparsons: but you cannot prove them

    kerry: the informal ones are more valuable to the formal ones

    <eparsons> +1 tp both

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to mention 'equals'

    danbri: only one seems only useful in a mathematical sense
    (equal), the others also make sense in a colloquial sense

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to mention

      [64] https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/spatial-query.html

    jtandy: It would be a well-defined topic to make a proposal for
    the link relations. Any volunteers?

    phila: where to put, in schema.org, W3C space? Should it also
    go to the BP, too?
    ... IANA wants to reference something stable

    <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose email

    ericP: simplest could be an email to the mailing list

    kerry: this might be a starting point:

      [65] https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/spatial-query.html

    <Linda> And schema.org has
    [66]https://schema.org/containedInPlace I saw

      [66] https://schema.org/containedInPlace

    <RaulGarciaCastro> scribe:RaulGarciaCastro

    jtandy: we want to include: computable relationships and
    assertive relations (not necessarily based on computations)
    ... … who can take the lead for doing that?

    eparsons: what has to be done?

    jtandy: name + description

    <phila> [67]An excellent example of a namespace document

      [67] https://www.w3.org/ns/csvw

    eparsons: I take the lead

    <ericP> [68]An adequate example of a namespace document

      [68] https://www.w3.org/ns/ldp

    jtandy: there is no best practice for these relationships;
    there is a gap there

    <ericP> (though it does introduce some convention for
    properties of a class)

    jtandy: … could this be part of the namespaces work?


    jtandy: how to use spatial relationships for uncertain
    boundaries? There is a common practice to do it

    <eparsons> action eparsons to work with chairs to define
    spatial relations namespace document

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Work with chairs to define
    spatial relations namespace document [on Ed Parsons - due

    kerry: we can handle it talking about fuzzy relationships
    ... … and I don’t even need to knwo the geometry

    eparsons: sometimes there are things with no geometry

    roba: relationships depend on the use case; we need a mechanism
    to specify what you need in your context

    frans: if we relax the relationships to things without
    geometry, anyone can make a statement about anything

    <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if time management mechanisms
    can be used here

    ericP: you should expect people acting in good faith (a trust

    jtandy: some expert should help me with the examples of spatial
    ... bill, what are your thoughts about producing statistical

    AndreaPerego: When are we talking about SpatialThing vs

    eparsons: let’s plan now with everyone here

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask BernadetteLoscio and newton
    their thoughts on the usefulness of the running example

    phila: Is narrative important?

    BernadetteLoscio: The running example was useful, even if in
    some cases it was difficult to come up with it

    jtandy: We were thinking on a flooding example, but it is
    ... … I don’t expect the best practices to be used alone, but
    with other documents

    eparsons: Maybe we could reduce the scope in the narrative?

    jtandy: Some answers that the narrative is supposed to answer
    are already answered in the document

    frans: How about using the narrative in the examples to give
    coherence? Right now it is separated

    eparsons: Maybe we can prioritize the best practices
    ... … trying to include everything makes things complex

    billroberts: have been trying to find population statistics and
    examples, and this raised a number of questions that can be
    performed (e.g., is the population data in machine-readable
    ... … this can give hints to data publishers

    ClemensPortele: If you remove the narrative and put it into the
    examples it may not be so convincing

    jtandy: how do we plan net steps? (will think on the narrative
    for tomorrow)

    Linda: how far is the current document for the next working

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to be annoying

    <kerry> +1 it has moved a lot from previous version

    <eparsons> +1

    phila: The document is already very good; please publish it as
    soon as possible
    ... … feel free to take things out
    ... … right now it is more than expected

    eparsons: publishing it is the way of getting more people

    phila: get what you got in a published document (even with open
    issues) in a week or two

    jtandy: Pending things: update the glossary with missing
    definitions (anyone?), bibliography, open issues, changelog…

    phila: I will help with the document (formatting, language,

    <danbri> [69]http://pending.webschemas.org/GeospatialGeometry
    (based on
    ta/ext/pending/issue-1375.rdfa (based on
    [71]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM )). Various
    'deliberate mistakes' included to check if anyone reads it.

      [69] http://pending.webschemas.org/GeospatialGeometry
      [71] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM

    AndreaPerego: Do we need the notion of a spatial thing? Not in
    every case we need to differentiate between real thing,
    geometry, etc.

    <roba> josh lieberman was working on an abstract spatial
    ontology - i think we need this to be a lightweight core

    <roba> ...updating geosparql may end up with something too
    complex ?

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to re-iterate SpatialThing was from
    a random chat

    jtandy: In the document we already state that a spatial thing
    can be different things

    danbri: the origin came due to trying to adopt CYC

    AndreaPerego: And people have used it since then

    danbri: We can still change it

    jtandy: The concept of spatial thing for representing things
    with extent is good for us
    ... the GeoSPARQL ontology is being refactored
    ... … anyway, review the document to see if the current use of
    the term makes you happy

    Linda: we have reviewed the document

    jtandy: Ensure that the glossary is consistent with the wiki
    ... … it is just a compilation thing, no need to write new

    <BernadetteLoscio> [72]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#requirements

      [72] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#requirements

    <danbri> re basic geo ns, it came from a
    [73]https://www.w3.org/wiki/ScheduledTopicChat meeting.
    [74]https://www.w3.org/wiki/GeoInfo which has 404 cyc reference
    -> [75]http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/geography-vocab.html -
    earlier version,

      [73] https://www.w3.org/wiki/ScheduledTopicChat
      [74] https://www.w3.org/wiki/GeoInfo
      [75] http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/geography-vocab.html

    <phila> [77]BP cross ref

      [77] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#requirements

    <danbri> so yes, SpatialThing came via Cyc, e.g.


      [78] http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjpUZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA

    newton: I made a script to build the cross-reference table for
    our best practices document; I can help with this document

    <eparsons> Action billrobe_ to check Glossary for completeness

    <trackbot> Error finding 'billrobe_'. You can review and
    register nicknames at

      [79] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users

    <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to confirm SpatialThing was indeed
    Cyc-inspired, see
    (also to report

      [80] http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjpUZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA

    danbri: went through the wikipedia infoboxes for relationships
    properties and there are proposals in schema.org; but nothing
    has been assessed by experts

    jtandy: Regarding bibliography, proper references in ReSpec
    must be found (in yellow)

    phila: I can manage that

    <phila> ACTION: phila to help improve the bibliography for the
    BP doc [recorded in

      [81] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Help improve the bibliography
    for the bp doc [on Phil Archer - due 2016-09-26].

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to talk about tomorrow agenda before
    we leave

    phila: I can help in placing the icons for the benefits

    jtandy: we will try to have a stable release in two weeks from
    Wednesday (15th October) so it can be published the following
    ... Thanks for all the comments

    <danbri> @phila, to answer your [82]http://schema.org/ process
    question - my actions fall under project webmaster role
    documented in

      [82] http://schema.org/
      [83] http://schema.org/docs/howwework.html#webmaster

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask about the agenda for
    the SDW workshop @ INSPIRE 2016 (Sep, 30th)


    AndreaPerego: do we want feedback from INSPIRE in the best

    jtandy: tell them about the new future draft so they can give

    AndreaPerego: We must highlight what we want feedback on
    ... … the workshop is next week on Friday

    jtandy: We can talk about it

    eparsons: I can present if you give me the content

Agenda for tomorrow

    kerry: (reviews agenda)

    phila: There is the AC meeting tomorrow at 15:00
    ... … it may affect the meeting

    meeting closed

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: phila to help improve the bibliography for the BP
    doc [recorded in

      [85] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [86]Issue-75 is in scope, close issue-75.
     2. [87]Close issue-70 that we need to pass this on to BP to
        handle, encouraging publishers' need to meet broadest
        possible community
     3. [88]That it is a requirement to have UoM included, close
     4. [89]There are cases where there is a requirement for more
        than one CRS, so we can close issue-76

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 07:39:17 UTC