[Minutes BP] 2017-04-12 call


The minutes of today's Best Practices call are available at:


... and copied as raw text below. Please all check the detailed plan for details on remaining actions:


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


          AndreaPerego, BartvanLeeuwen, ByronCinNZ,
          ClemensPortele, eparsons, Francois, jtandy, Payam

          Bill, Josh, Linda, Scott




     * [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.

   jtandy: Duly noted.

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

     [16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170405

   jtandy: Good idea to approve minutes from issue resolution

   <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/

     [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/

     [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
   … I think Ed, you indicated that you were fine with option 5.

   Payam: Data on the Web is more or less ordered based on

   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
   … 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

   eparsons: I think what's nice about option 5 is that it is
   priority based but also organized around the biggest changes
   … 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

   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

   <jtandy> tbd | Ensure that each best practice when referring to
   others takes account of the re-ordered sequence of best

   <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/

     [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/

     [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

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

Relationship between BP doc and EO-QB

   <jtandy> [22]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/

     [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

   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/

     [23] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document

   <jtandy> [24]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/

     [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/

     [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
   … 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,

   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.


   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

   ClemensPortele: Thanks Bart for looking at it. I tried to
   preserve the key message of the architecture that you've been

   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/

     [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

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 16:07:30 UTC