- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:07:16 +0200
- To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's Best Practices call are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below. Please all check the detailed plan for details on remaining actions:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12 April 2017
[2]Agenda [3]IRC log
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170412
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-irc
Attendees
Present
AndreaPerego, BartvanLeeuwen, ByronCinNZ,
ClemensPortele, eparsons, Francois, jtandy, Payam
Regrets
Bill, Josh, Linda, Scott
Chair
Jeremy
Scribe
tidoust
Contents
* [4]Meeting Minutes
1. [5]Approving last meeting's minutes
2. [6]Patent Call
3. [7]Choose BP reordering solution
4. [8]Consider inclusion of "GeoJSON Text Sequences" in
BP doc
5. [9]Relationship between BP doc and EO-QB
6. [10]Sprint status review
7. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
Meeting Minutes
Approving last meeting's minutes
<jtandy> [14]https://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-sdwbp-minutes
[14] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-sdwbp-minutes
<Payam> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
<jtandy> +1
<Payam> +1
<eparsons> +1
<tidoust> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<eparsons> [15]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Patent Call
[Ed takes us through the patent call]
[Jeremy reviews the agenda, asks for any other business]
<Payam> NoB
BartvanLeeuwen: I have a comment on the work that Clemens did.
BP11.
jtandy: Duly noted.
<jtandy> [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Meetings:BP-Telecon20170405
[16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170405
jtandy: Good idea to approve minutes from issue resolution
meeting
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> 0 - was not there
<ClemensPortele> +0 (did not attend)
<eparsons> +1
<AndreaPerego> Actually, the minutes of the 2017-04-05 telecon
are here: [17]https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes
[17] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes
Choose BP reordering solution
<jtandy> wiki page: [18]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal
[18] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal
<jtandy> WG email thread: [19]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0268.html
[19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0268.html
jtandy: Has anybody not seen the reordering proposals?
[silence heard]
jtandy: [quickly goes through the options]
… I added an option based on thematic ordering.
… And we have a final one which is based on work done on
guiding principles in stats community, which I'm less familiar
with.
… I think Ed, you indicated that you were fine with option 5.
Payam: Data on the Web is more or less ordered based on
workflow.
jtandy: All of these options are different from the current
structure, which follows the structure in the Data on the Web
BP document.
Payam: I feel we should spend more time on the content than on
the reordering.
jtandy: I hear that, but we resolved to reorder it in a
previous meeting.
… In particular, first BP is not seen as the good opening one.
ClemensPortele: Just to mention that my preference for option
4.
… I see the arguments for option 5 and right now I would also
agree that option 5 is the best of the options.
… Regarding option 6, this is about aligning with a different
structure. That's useful for people that come from that other
structure, but it's more useful to follow the order we feel is
correct.
eparsons: I think what's nice about option 5 is that it is
priority based but also organized around the biggest changes
first.
… Further options 6 and 7 are more traditional, what we've
already done before. I'm still happy with my vote on Option 5.
jtandy: I think we need to acknowledge that Laurent did a great
work on option 6, this is not being ignored, for sure!
ByronCinNZ: Option 5 is fine. I agree we should not lose the
categorization done in Option 6.
AndreaPerego: I'm also quite happy with option 5. Only
question: the metadata is at the end, and we refer to it in the
previous BP, at least in examples.
… So just wondering whether addressing metadata at the end
could be an issue.
jtandy: I hear that. I note Linda's report that whatever order
she tried, there was no way not to have BPs link to further
parts in the specification.
… Option 5 seems the closest we have to a perfect solution so
far.
AndreaPerego: Irrespective of the order that we want to use for
the reordering, some BP may have been written knowing which BP
was before or after in the document, with text that says
"previous" or "next". To be checked.
jtandy: Good point.
… I'm adding some notes to my editorial list of actions
accordingly.
<jtandy> tbd | Ensure that each best practice when referring to
others takes account of the re-ordered sequence of best
practices
<AndreaPerego> :)
jtandy: What I've heard is that everybody who's spoken is fine
with Option 5. Byron mentioned option 3 as well but still
agrees with 5, right?
ByronCinNZ: Yes, option 3 does not have to be exclusive.
jtandy: The section intros will need to be re-assembled, but I
think that we're approaching a proposal here.
<jtandy> Proposed: the BP document is restructured according to
proposal 5 [20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_5:_Themati
c_.26_prioritised_ordering
[20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_5:_Thematic_.26_prioritised_ordering
<eparsons> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
<tidoust> +1
<jtandy> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Payam> +1
Resolved: the BP document is restructured according to proposal
5 [21]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_5:_Themati
c_.26_prioritised_ordering
[21] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_5:_Thematic_.26_prioritised_ordering
Action: Linda to restructure the BP document according to
Option 5
<trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Restructure the bp document
according to option 5 [on Linda van den Brink - due
2017-04-19].
Consider inclusion of "GeoJSON Text Sequences" in BP doc
eparsons: I picked up the action to have a look at this. Issue
popped up from an email asking us to look at a methodology to
handle large geometry objects developed at IETF.
… Browsers would struggle with a very large array of vertices.
This is going to be an issue with GeoJSON.
… Proposal that Sean made last year did not seem to receive a
lot of comments.
… There are methodologies emerging, but it will take time
before things settle done.
… My suggestion is to close the issue, noting that this is an
emerging area.
jtandy: If I recall, Andrea, you have a bit of outstanding work
about providing simplified geometry.
… Would that be a nice addition to it?
AndreaPerego: I think so.
eparsons: I agree, these are basically the same issue.
jtandy: OK, I am updating the BP8 task in the detailed plan
<jtandy> > Andrea with help from Ed | Refer to GeoJSON Text
Sequences as just one of the methods to work with large
geometry objects; see GitHub Issue 656
eparsons: Essentially, the text in the GitHub issue could be
copied-and-pasted.
Relationship between BP doc and EO-QB
<jtandy> [22]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-sdw-wg/2017Apr/0026.html
[22] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Apr/0026.html
jtandy: In the work that Kerry has been doing, she proposed
something about balancing quality and cost, which I suggested
Bill take a look at.
… I also added a change to BP6 to accomodate the "BP change
over time" comment.
… In her third point, she talks about referencing EO-QB and
CoverageJSON., and UCR in fourth point.
<jtandy> > [VOCAB-DATA-CUBE] provides a generic mechanism to
express well-structured data, such as timeseries, in RDF.
[EO-QB] and [QB4ST] (developed alongside this best practice
Note within the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group)
illustrate how [VOCAB-DATA-CUBE] may be used in this way.
jtandy: All I'm doing is referencing the other work that the
group has done. I'm not making it a Best Practice, sticking to
MAY.
eparsons: I think this is a good approach.
… Kerry was only referring to examples, so perhaps we should be
stronger and actually say that these are not best practices
… but they respond to identified challenges.
jtandy: OK
Payam: Kerry's email says that these are applications of best
practices. I agree they are rather examples.
jtandy: I'm a bit confused
eparsons: These are approaches that fill the context of
balancing quality and cost, but we're not in a position to say
that these are best practices.
… Surely it makes sense that we reference other deliverables
that we're doing in the group.
… But there is likely going to be additional work, even after
this document is published, on these aspects.
jtandy: Hearing what you said, Ed, we should make the link but
identify explicitly that these are not best practices, but do
provide mechanisms that may be useful to describe data that
vary over time.
<AndreaPerego> +1
jtandy: I'm content with that.
<ClemensPortele> +1
jtandy: Going back to Kerry's point 3, about referencing EO-QB
and COV-JSON. I said that section 6 does not reference
implementations and I'm happy to leave it that way.
… I have asked Bill to figure out if he can find a way to add a
reference to Coverage data models.
<eparsons> +1
<ClemensPortele> +1
jtandy: Are you content with that as an approach?
… So it's all on Bill.
<ByronCinNZ> +1
jtandy: I've addressed Kerry's point 4.
eparsons: All in all, it would be nice to link works together,
but timing plays against us, and it would have been nice to
have more mature specs as well.
… Focusing on the end user is the most important factor.
Sprint status review
jtandy: We do have a detailed plan
<jtandy> [23]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document
[23] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document
<jtandy> [24]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:
[24] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:
jtandy: If you're doing a section and you think that you're not
going to be able to meet the deadline that you've got, please
flag it now.
<ClemensPortele> My proposed edits are in [25]https://
github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/681 and [26]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/
pull/682
[25] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/681
[26] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/682
[some discussion on how great GitHub is]
AndreaPerego: I think I will be able to meet the deadline. I'm
currently working offline because changes are related.
… I will put them on my fork on GitHub and then I would like to
ask the group to review the relevant bits before I prepare pull
requests
… Hopefully next week.
jtandy: Friday 21st should be last day. It may be that we need
to slide by a week. Is it sensible for us to agree with that,
now?
AndreaPerego: I will drop a mail before completing things to
get feedback from the group.
<ClemensPortele> When will Linda do the reordering? Probably
after all the other changes?
jtandy: If you keep on fetching gh-pages from w3c repo and
rebasing, things should go smoothly.
eparsons: It's probably a good idea to avoid touching the
document during the reordering process.
jtandy: That's a good point.
… Why don't you have a discussion with Linda once she gets back
from vacation.
AOB
BartvanLeeuwen: Clemens did a large restructuring in BP11 and I
was wondering whether the part I wanted to have in there is
still in there. And I think the answer is "yes", so that's
good.
ClemensPortele: Thanks Bart for looking at it. I tried to
preserve the key message of the architecture that you've been
using.
Payam: [Talking about a "table", scribe confesses being lost
here] I can prepare it while in Japan but will need help
integrating in the document.
<Payam> table: [27]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
BP_Mapping_to_the_Requirements
[27] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Mapping_to_the_Requirements
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx jtandy
<BartvanLeeuwen> bye
<jtandy> bye
<ClemensPortele> thanks, bye
<eparsons> bye
[Call adjourned]
<Payam> bye
<AndreaPerego> Bye!
Summary of Action Items
1. [28]Linda to restructure the BP document according to
Option 5
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]the BP document is restructured according to proposal 5
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
index.php?title=BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_5:_The
matic_.26_prioritised_ordering
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 16:07:30 UTC