- From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:06:45 +0000
- To: "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The list of the issues we closed is here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list#ISSUES_WE_CLOSED_during_5th_of_April
Please tell us if we closed any issues we shouldn't have!
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
Verzonden: woensdag 5 april 2017 18:29
Aan: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Onderwerp: [Minutes BP] 2017-04-05 call
Hi all,
The minutes of today's BP call are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below. Lots of issues solved and closed, that's good!
Thanks,
Francois.
--
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
05 April 2017
[2]Agenda [3]IRC log
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170405
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
Alexa, billroberts, eparsons, Francois, jtandy
Regrets
Chair
Jeremy
Scribe
billroberts, eparsons, Francois
Contents
* [4]Meeting Minutes
1. [5]Should we reference GeoJSON text sequences (#656)
2. [6]Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic
cases (#392)
3. [7]How do we ensure alignment between terminology used
in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)
4. [8]Appendix A, common formats list: should scientific
formats be included? (#237)
5. [9]Need to illustrate role of SDIs in publishing
spatial data on the Web (#223)
6. [10]Devise a way to make best versus emerging
practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)
7. [11]Mappings between vocabularies about spatial things
(#38)
8. [12]Write a shared note with the DWBP (#36)
9. [13]Make Best Practices more open (#230)
10. [14]Is "interoperability" also a top-level problem
(alongside discoverability and accessibility)? (#205)
11. [15]Complete BP about metadata (#520)
12. [16]Example target doesn't resolve: geo.resc.info
(#482)
13. [17]Do we also need to introduce spatial
relationships? (#383)
14. [18]Good practice for publishing geometry of a thing
as different geometry types (#251)
15. [19]B. Authoritative sources (#231)
16. [20]Methodology for selecting a spatial vocabulary is
not yet defined. (#214)
17. [21]Glossary section needs improving; see existing
sources of definitions (#212)
18. [22]Definition of "spatial data" is required (#206)
19. [23]Is the term "subset" correct? (#195)
20. [24]Are "content publishers" sufficiently different
from the other defined audience categories? (#190)
21. [25]Should content from "Exposing datasets through
APIs" be moved to DWBP "Data Access"? (#187)
22. [26]BP 9 - how to describe relative positions- needs
more content (#121)
23. [27]Definition of 'Spatial Thing' (#39)
24. [28]Expressing the fuzziness of a spatial thing (#37)
25. [29]Determine where to place reference to GeoDCAT-AP
#35
26. [30]Public Comments
* [31]Summary of Action Items
* [32]Summary of Resolutions
Meeting Minutes
[33]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[33] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
jtandy - work as many issues as possible directed by Linda
<jtandy> [34]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
BP_sorted_issue_list
[34] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
Linda 3 groups - 1 issues we need to talk about
Linda 2 - issues to review
Linda 3 - Stuff still needs to be done - more work required
Linda - Need a resolution to close issues - all agreed
jtandy - close both in GitHub and minutes
Should we reference GeoJSON text sequences (#656)
Linda Issue 656 - Geojson new issue
<tidoust> [35]#656
[35] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/656
Linda - interesting address problem with data with large
features
Linda - Large arrays of coordinates in a single feature
jtandy - Not common practice yet - we have not heard of it..
Linda - Mention as emerging practice...
billroberts - leave it out, not identified as a problem yet in
BP
jtandy - Andrea looking at simplification approaches to simply
geometry
jtandy Action to look at both the problem and this as an
emerging approach to resolve it
Action: eparsons to look at both the geojson size problem and
this as an emerging approach to resolve
<trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to
Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what
happened.
Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic cases (#392)
Linda Next Issue 392
<tidoust> [36]Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic
cases (#392)
[36] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/392
Linda CRS intro does not talk about non geospatial - eg
planetary bodies
jtandy - Close as text of intro changed...
How do we ensure alignment between terminology used in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)
Linda Next issue 382
<tidoust> [37]How do we ensure alignment between terminology
used in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)
[37] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/382
Linda josh has started work on spatial ontology but will not be
finished
jtandy Issue 6 months old, agree that alignment not possible
now - how do we reference ongoing work ?
jtandy - new appendix list of file formats and voacbs could put
a paragraph here ?
<jtandy> [38]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#File_formats_and_vocabularies
[38] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#File_formats_and_vocabularies
jtandy Andrea and billroberts working on this new appendix -
put a green note about "new" spatial vocab here to be written
by Josh
Appendix A, common formats list: should scientific formats be included? (#237)
Linda - Next Appendix A Issue 237 scientific formats ?? NetCDF
etc
<tidoust> [39]Appendix A, common formats list: should
scientific formats be included? (#237)
[39] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/237
jtandy recognise these used often for coverage data - not very
webby ?
billroberts - Lists are painful, always miss something
jtandy - Criteria - Open standard (UK gov view of Open) so not
shape for example
jtandy Here is the list...
jtandy Currently in the appendix..
<jtandy> File format and vocabulary list:
<jtandy> simple:
<jtandy> - HTML plus json-ld <script> with schema.org vocab
<jtandy> web app:
<jtandy> - GeoJSON
<jtandy> - KML
<jtandy> - JSON?
<jtandy> - GeoRSS?
<jtandy> data integration:
<jtandy> - RDF serialisations...
<jtandy> - JSON-LD
<jtandy> - TTL
<jtandy> - NTRIPLES etc.
<jtandy> ... with associated vocabularies
<jtandy> > W3C Basic Geo, Schema.org GeoSPARQL, DCTerms, LOCN,
GeoRSS, vCard?
<jtandy> spatial analysis:
<jtandy> - GML
<jtandy> - GML-SF0
jtandy - other criteria is that the data needs to be useable on
the web - e.g. not download all of netcdf datafile
jtandy billroberts can you connect to Andrea and reply this
discussion
billroberts - Need to restate criteria
jtandy - Open & Webby
<jtandy> 3 main criteria are: open + spatial (or a container a
container for spatial) + webby (e.g. can work with it in a
browser)
<jtandy> [convenient to parse in a browser]
<jtandy> [without any special plugins]
billroberts - what does that mean ? open anything is a browser
thats non-binanry
<jtandy> + mustn't be a "one organisation" format
billroberts - will look at list and come back...
Need to illustrate role of SDIs in publishing spatial data on the Web
(#223)
<Linda> [40]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/223
[40] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/223
Linda Next Issue 223
Linda Illustrate role of SDI's
Linda - Section 10 why do more that the traditional SDI...
Linda - I think we have done this
Linda - We can close
jtandy - yes
<jtandy> Proposal: we close Github Issue 223 because we have
already put the necessary text into section 10
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
Resolved: we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put
the necessary text into section 10
<billroberts> +1
Devise a way to make best versus emerging practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)
Linda: Next Issue 81 OLD one
<tidoust> [41]Devise a way to make best versus emerging
practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)
[41] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/81
jtandy Only one was use of Void - all will be in the emerging
interoperability section
jtandy - Source Linda your paper
jtandy - issues where we have no recommendation - a bear trap
!!
<jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body
of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in
conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or
somesuch)
<jtandy> +1
<jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body
of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in
conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or
somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
+1
<tidoust> +1
<billroberts> +1
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: there are no emerging practices in the body of the
document, any emerging practices will be referenced in
conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or
somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
jtandy Do these have reference in the document
action linda cross reference github with document for closes
issues
<trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Cross reference github with
document for closes issues [on Linda van den Brink - due
2017-04-12].
Mappings between vocabularies about spatial things (#38)
<Linda> [42]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38
[42] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38
jtandy Mapping of vocabs we are not going to be able to do -
suggest we close
jtandy - Don't have time or resources within the SDW group
<jtandy> Proposed: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary
mapping) because we have neither the time nor resource to do
this - the follow on group could pick this up if need be
<Linda> +1
+1
<tidoust> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping)
because we have neither the time nor resource to do this - the
follow on group could pick this up if need be
Write a shared note with the DWBP (#36)
<Linda> [43]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/36
[43] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/36
Make Best Practices more open (#230)
[44]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/230
[44] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/230
<Linda> [45]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225
[45] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225
Linda: Can be discussed with #229 and #225
… I made a comment on #225 this afternoon.
… We should probably update the abstract
… Sections 9, 12.5 and 12.7 could be amended
jtandy: We were advocating a linked data approach. Use URIs for
things and link to other people things, but we also said that
we do not want to be overly dependent on RDF.
… The other sections look good now.
Linda: I agree. Only the abstract needs to be adjusted now.
eparsons: I agree. The gist of it, we've already addressed.
jtandy: We're now a much more balanced document in that regard
billroberts: Yes, if you're talking about the web, you're
talking about URIs and links. Linked data is not really more
than that.
jtandy: I agree that we don't want to give the message that RDF
is the only solution. [quoting from the linked data section]
… You can do linked data with RDF, microformats, lots of things
Linda: So agreement that we just need to update the Abstract?
jtandy: Affirmative.
<jtandy> [46]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#Editorial
[46] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Editorial
<jtandy> Linda vd Brink | Update Abstract to reflect Linked
Data approach without reliance on RDF
jtandy: I see you closed #230, I'll just add a note about
reference to linked data principles in BP14.
… #229 is closed as well, good.
… Do we want to make sure that Eric is comfortable with that?
Linda: Will do.
<Linda> [47]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/205
[47] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/205
Is "interoperability" also a top-level problem (alongside discoverability and accessibility)? (#205)
Linda: Jeremy, you re-wrote a sentence in the introduction, so
I guess we can close it.
jtandy: I cannot think of anything else that we could do, so I
agree.
<jtandy> Proposed: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning
"interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already
update the BP doc to reflect this
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning
"interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already
update the BP doc to reflect this
<eparsons> +1
<Linda> [48]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/520
[48] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/520
Complete BP about metadata (#520)
Linda: About current BP1, some inconsistency. Also DCAT is not
the only solution.
… Josh's work should have addressed this already.
[having a look at Josh's work in [49]https://github.com/w3c/
sdw/pull/624 ]
[49] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/624
jtandy: I'm content that Josh's work has addressed this. There
is also an action on me to update BP4 about ensuring that your
metadata is also accessible.
<jtandy> see my task here: [50]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/
wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP4:_Make_you_data_indexable_by_s
earch_engines
[50] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP4:_Make_you_data_indexable_by_search_engines
<jtandy> "Minor edits to reflect discussion about 'indexable
dataset metadata' (e.g. dataset landing pages) during Delft F2F
<jtandy> "
jtandy: So I think we can close that one.
<jtandy> Proposed: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset
metadata) as Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to
BP4) resolve this concern
<Linda> +1
+1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as
Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve
this concern
Example target doesn't resolve: geo.resc.info (#482)
<Linda> [51]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/482
[51] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/482
Linda: I think the link is gone by now.
eparsons: BP11
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not
resolving) - this is time expired aas we no longer include this
in an example
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) -
this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an
example
Do we also need to introduce spatial relationships? (#383)
<Linda> [52]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/383
[52] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/383
Linda: Covered in BP14, I think
jtandy: Yes.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial
relations) - this is now covered in BP14
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) -
this is now covered in BP14
<Linda> [53]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/251
[53] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/251
Good practice for publishing geometry of a thing as different geometry types (#251)
jtandy: I suggest we flag it for Andrea and leave it open.
… I'm going to copy that in BP11 and add that he should check
that up as well.
<jtandy> [54]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP8:_Provide_Geometries_in_a_web_
friendly_way
[54] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP8:_Provide_Geometries_in_a_web_friendly_way
B. Authoritative sources (#231)
<Linda> [55]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/231
[55] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/231
jtandy: I re-wrote the appendix, now absorbed in different
parts of the document.
… Under BP14.
<jtandy> [56]http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/
7000000000030505
[56] http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/7000000000030505
jtandy: The fact is we're still using identifiers such as the
above one.
eparsons: The problem is that he says they are not stable
jtandy: We got the detailed one and the 50k gazeteers
… Do we want to swap that out to GeoNames?
eparsons: These are illustrative. We're not expecting people to
make use of them.
… But to answer Pete's point, we should address that.
<jtandy> In contrast, the resource identified by [57]http://
data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/50kGazetteer/81103 defines
Edinburgh as a named place of type city. This is not the same
as the City of Edinburgh Area and therefore use of the
owl:sameAs relationship is inappropriate.
[57] http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/50kGazetteer/81103
<eparsons> [58]http://www.geonames.org/2650225
[58] http://www.geonames.org/2650225
jtandy: I think there should be a Geonames definition of
Edinburgh that we could use.
<jtandy> [59]https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#entity-level-links
[59] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#entity-level-links
jtandy: [quoting the current text, see above]. I'm suggesting
that we substitute the 50KGazetteer URL with the GeoNames one.
eparsons: I'll do that.
<jtandy> [60]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP14:_Publish_links_between_spati
al_things_and_related_resources
[60] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP14:_Publish_links_between_spatial_things_and_related_resources
Methodology for selecting a spatial vocabulary is not yet defined.
(#214)
<Linda> [61]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/214
[61] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/214
Linda: The section does not really give you a methodology. Is
this what the new appendix is giving you?
jtandy: No. There's a bunch of choices which means that you
cannot just select a vocabulary right away. There are a number
of categorizations of data publications, of which one of them
is RDF.
… We reference the Data on the Web BP spec here.
… We're not going to give you a list.
… Bill, I think you're in the best position to tell whether
we've sufficiently addressed this in the document?
billroberts: Looking at it.
… I'll get back to you offline. My feeling is that it's a good
idea to refer to Data on the Web BP doc to help you choose a
vocabulary rather than doing it in this document.
jtandy: I assigned the issue to you.
Glossary section needs improving; see existing sources of definitions
(#212)
<Linda> [62]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/212
[62] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/212
jtandy: Assigned to Peter Parslow.
Definition of "spatial data" is required (#206)
<Linda> [63]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206
[63] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206
Linda: Also related to the Glossary
… Jeremy, you did some changes to the definition of spatial
data. Got some +1s, so people seem happy
<jtandy> Spatial data: Data describing anything with spatial
extent; i.e. size, shape or position. In addition to describing
things that are positioned relative to the Earth (also see
geospatial data), spatial data may also describe things using
other coordinate systems that are not related to position on
the Earth, such as the size, shape and positions of cellular
and sub-cellular features described using the 2D or 3D
Cartesian coordinate system of a specific
<jtandy> tissue sample.
billroberts: We haven't really addressed anything non
geospatial
jtandy: That's correct.
Linda: We did receive some comments that we are using the term
"spatial" in slightly ambiguous ways sometimes. We could create
an action to review that term in the last sprint.
jtandy: OK, I'm going to add it to the Editorial section.
eparsons: There is often confusion between spatial and
geospatial. We're as guilty as anybody else.
Linda: If you add it to the editorial issue, then we can close
this section.
jtandy: OK
<jtandy> tbd | Check that we are consistent in use of
"geospatial" and "spatial" terms (see GitHub Issue 206)
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of
spatial data) because the Glossary definition has now been
updated - consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial
planned for editorial check during this sprint
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data)
because the Glossary definition has now been updated -
consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned for
editorial check during this sprint
Is the term "subset" correct? (#195)
<Linda> [64]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/195
[64] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/195
jtandy: I think this is time expired
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term
subset) as this is now time expired following re-write of BP11
(etc.)
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as
this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
<Linda> [65]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/190
[65] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/190
Are "content publishers" sufficiently different from the other defined audience categories? (#190)
jtandy: I think I re-wrote the introduction
… I think it's clear now.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as
rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended
readersjip
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as
rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended
readership
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
<billroberts> +1
<eparsons> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to
Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
Should content from "Exposing datasets through APIs" be moved to DWBP "Data Access"? (#187)
<Linda> [66]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/187
[66] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/187
jtandy: Time expired
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience
APIs) as this is now time expired following substantial rewrite
to both SDW BP11 and DWBP
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as
this is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both
SDW BP11 and DWBP
<jtandy> [16:39:28] <Linda>
… +1
BP 9 - how to describe relative positions- needs more content (#121)
<Linda> [67]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/121
[67] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/121
Linda: Can be closed, Josh re-wrote it.
jtandy: There's an action on Josh to add data snippets, which
he agreed to do.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of
BP9 clarifies concerns about relative positioning
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9
clarifies concerns about relative positioning
Definition of 'Spatial Thing' (#39)
<Linda> [68]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/39
[68] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/39
Linda: Beware, we're doing archeology now. Really old issue.
eparsons: How widely used is "spatial thing" in the document?
jtandy: It's extensively used. We chose to use that term
instead of features.
… I've referenced Peter Parslow and Josh in the issue.
<Linda> [69]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/37
[69] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/37
Expressing the fuzziness of a spatial thing (#37)
jtandy has updated glossary notes
<jtandy> search for: published as part of Ordnance Survey’s 50K
Gazetteer
jtandy: notes this reference as a place in the document where
we discuss fuzzy definitions of a spatial thing
eparsons: this is probably as good as we can do
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial
things) - discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) -
discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
<jtandy> [70]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
BP_sorted_issue_list
[70] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
<Linda> [71]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/35
[71] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/35
Determine where to place reference to GeoDCAT-AP #35
linda: notes that GeoDCAT-AP is already covered in various
places in the document but Andrea reopened the issue
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to
GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference
it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertient to do so
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to
GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference
it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP)
- we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8
too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
Public Comments
<eparsons> [72]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments
[72] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments
eparsons: process followed: went through email thread on
archive to find who initially made the comment, looked through
any responses in the thread, emailed the initial commenter to
ask if they are happy with how we have dealt with it in updated
versions of the document
<eparsons> [73]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-sdw-comments/2015Jul/0007.html
[73] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2015Jul/0007.html
eparsons: refers to hypermedia use. Largely out of scope
jtandy: charter says it's out of scope
<eparsons> [74]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html
[74] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html
eparsons: I think we should give the originator a little longer
to respond, then close it
eparsons: came from a colleague of Linda at Geonovum. Covers
discoverability and accessibility
eparsons: document structure has been improved since then and
we have addressed the excessive focus on RDF. Waiting to hear
back from Simeon on whether he agrees
<eparsons> [75]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0007.html
[75] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0007.html
eparsons: regarding potential use of DCAT or similar to
partition larger datasets
eparsons: Jon Blower has responded on behalf of Maik Riechert
to say Maik is happy to close it
eparsons: I'll update the wiki to note the status of each of
the questions
phila: although formal resolution of public comments is not
strictly necessary for a Note (rather than a recommendation) it
is still best practice and will be useful
jtandy: notes that there is nothing substantive in the public
comments which will cause any problems for finalising the
document
jtandy: Linda to tidy up the wiki page to note that we have
closed lots of issues
jtandy: there are still some issues remaining that need to be
assigned to someone. How should we proceed?
Linda: Let's do that via email
Linda can make a suggestion on who to assign them to
jtandy: issue 509 assigned to Linda
jtandy: issue 381 assigned to jtandy
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link
Relations Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as
discussed at Delft F2F
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations
Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at
Delft F2F
jtandy: spatial operators, issue 298.
linda: Clemens has taken this on
jtandy: issue 193, general editorial point - will add it to the
editorial plan
linda: issue 222 is also editorial (consistency in how we cite
specifications)
assigned to linda and jeremy
linda: issue 499 is me
linda: issue 654 is a recent addition. Minor correction to
Geonames URIs (trailing slash). Assigned to Linda
Summary of Action Items
1. [76]eparsons to look at both the geojson size problem and
this as an emerging approach to resolve
Summary of Resolutions
1. [77]we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put
the necessary text into section 10
2. [78]there are no emerging practices in the body of the
document, any emerging practices will be referenced in
conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or
somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
3. [79]we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping)
because we have neither the time nor resource to do this -
the follow on group could pick this up if need be
4. [80]we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning
"interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already
update the BP doc to reflect this
5. [81]close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as
Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve
this concern
6. [82]Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) -
this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an
example
7. [83]Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) - this
is now covered in BP14
8. [84]Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data)
because the Glossary definition has now been updated -
consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned
for editorial check during this sprint
9. [85]Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as
this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
10. [86]Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to
Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
11. [87]Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as this
is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both
SDW BP11 and DWBP
12. [88]Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9
clarifies concerns about relative positioning
13. [89]Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) -
discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
14. [90]Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) -
we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8
too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
15. [91]Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations Types
of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at
Delft F2F
Minutes formatted by Bert Bos's [92]scribe.perl version 2.18
(2017/03/20 18:51:04), a reimplementation of David Booth's
[93]scribe.perl. See [94]CVS log.
[92] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe2/scribedoc.html
[93] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[94] https://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe2/
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2017 06:07:19 UTC