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

Re: SDW WG WS @ INSPIRE 2016

From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:21:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHrFjcnvoLKVRR+n5WFRE05tD6-3Quiac+GaPQB46-+r8Vg=_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Cc: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Slides are here ...
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14HR4tM14FsntP_1ylTn4kw1Y00v3emzRYrpWFLHMo7U/edit?usp=drive_web

Ed

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 12:42 Clemens Portele, <
portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:

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

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 11:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 30 September 2016 11:22:17 UTC