W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

[Minutes BP] 2017 02 15

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:12:42 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <13f4a177-a333-a6b8-7a59-333eaab43882@w3.org>
The minutes of today's BP sub group meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.

A lot of progress is being made but with heavy loads being carried by 
only a few people.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

15 Feb 2017


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170215

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-irc


           Linda, AndreaPerego, ClemensPortele, phila, byroncinnz,
           jtandy, billroberts, LarsG, joshlieberman, ClausStadler,

           Ed, Scott




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]backlog and sprint plan
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions

    <phila_> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web BP Sub Group

    <trackbot> Date: 15 February 2017

    <scribe> scribe:billroberts

    <phila> scribe: Bill

    <AndreaPerego> chair: jtandy

    <phila> scribeNick: billroberts


    <jtandy> minutes of last meeting:

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/01-sdwbp-minutes

    <Linda_> +1

    PROPOSED: approve minutes of last meeting

    <jtandy> +1

    <ClemensPortele> +1

    <LarsG> +0 (wasn't there)

    0 - wasn't there

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <joshlieberman> +1

    <byroncinnz> +0 wasn't there

    RESOLUTION: Previous minutes approved

    Patent call: no issues raised


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

backlog and sprint plan

    <jtandy> sprint plan


    Jeremy and Linda have prioritised work items for the next
    sprint: Feb to Mid March

    scribe: ready to release a new iteration at the Delft face to
    face meeting

    jtandy: has added some items into the Mid March - end April
    sprint as well - mainly editorial issues. This sprint is the
    last opportunity for substantive change
    ... Coordinate Reference Systems work for the current sprint -
    Byron is working on it

    byroncinnz: I've put in a pull request a couple of days ago

    jtandy: thanks! will review and include it in this sprint

    byroncinnz: have kept the two BPs separate and tried to make
    them more distinct. Have cleaned up language around accuracy
    and precision
    ... a lot of the issues around datum rather than CRS.
    ... and took out some of the more general stuff on CRS from BP3
    but left it in BP17.
    ... I suggest moving BP3 later in the document as less
    important in general than BP17

    jtandy: we want to move BP17 into the 'body' of the document.
    It's currently sitting in the 'Other' section
    ... and we can recommend WGS84 for most simple/default cases?

    byroncinnz: yes

    jtandy: other blocks of tasks in the sprint plan: Dataset
    metadata (BP1)

    <phila> [12]Draft new WG

      [12] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/charter/

    phila: following on from previous DCAT discussions, now
    preparing a new working group which will probably involve
    updates to DCAT. The new working group is on content
    negotiation by profile

    jtandy: notes that we shouldn't tie ourselves to a specific
    version of DCAT because new things are coming

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to mention some work planned
    in OGC about GeoDCAT-AP

    joshlieberman: there is work on DCAT in OGC Testbed-12 and will
    be in Testbed-13. So the recommendation on DCAT should probably
    say 'keep an eye on it'

    AndreaPerego: notes the OGC work on DCAT. Also there was a
    meeting at JRC on metadata and DCAT and possible collaboration
    with W3C

    phila: let's discuss this in Delft to get input into next
    working group plans. Also note the intention to continue
    collaborating between OGC and W3C

    jtandy: we need to put the essence of these DCAT discussions
    into BP1

    <AndreaPerego> I can contribute.

    jtandy: volunteers to do that for us?
    ... thanks Andrea. But I know you have work to do on BP8. Can
    anyone take a lead on BP1, to work with Andrea?

    joshlieberman: I can work on BP1 with Andrea

    AndreaPerego: is there a risk that the new OGC working group
    and W3C group will overlap and possibly coming up with
    competing solutions? To avoid that we should make sure we

    phila: to avoid that risk, we should have a liaison

    joshlieberman: it needs to be a collaboration between the
    metadata and geosemantics groups of OGC and we can finalise
    that in Delft

    <joshlieberman> Yes, as of last night...

    <phila> ACTION: phila to talk to OGC, Andrea etc. about liaison
    wrt Data Exchange WG [recorded in

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Talk to ogc, andrea etc. about
    liaison wrt data exchange wg [on Phil Archer - due 2017-02-22].

    jtandy: next section is Spatial Data vocabularies and file
    ... Andrea is working on BP8 on different representations of

    AndreaPerego: I'm preparing examples to go in BP8. And trying
    to revise BP8 text to provide more precise guidance. I have a
    structure based on usage patterns (see mailing list)



    AndreaPerego: waiting for feedback on that
    ... it might be too simple, but it's a starting point. What are
    the main approaches we see in practice?
    ... 3 options listed in the mail linked above
    ... Option 1 is probably best for web developers. (geometries
    as literals in the data) - as long as the geometry is not too
    ... Option 2 (use HTTP URI for the geometry) is fine for LD
    people, maybe less so for web developers - allows geometry to
    be managed separately from other data, so more flexible
    ... Option 3 is often used by LD people but may be complicated
    in practice. Geometry is less re-usable
    ... will review the pros and cons of each of those options

    jtandy: please provide feedback on Andrea's idea via the
    mailing list

    <joshlieberman_> Option 2 is best for multiple geometry
    options, for a choice of geometry roles or scales.

    ClemensPortele: need to clarify the context. eg GeoJSON often
    falls in category 3.
    ... and note that we agreed we would not only take an RDF
    perspective. Will provide more detail via mailing list

    joshlieberman_: there is a distinction between having a
    geometry as a literal and having coordinate positions as a
    ... often people represent the position as a literal but
    provide other information about the geometry in a non-literal
    ... so we should make a distinction between geometry and
    coordinate positions

    jtandy: BP10 is another high priority activity
    ... choice of vocabulary for describing spatial data
    ... We should provide advice people on how to make a choice of

    <joshlieberman_> could we use vocabulary, encoding,
    serialization? file format is a blunt instrument.

    jtandy: this could be a big piece of work
    ... Bill, can you take ownership of BP10?


    jtandy: note that Bill will need assistance

    <AndreaPerego> I can help - considering the relationship with

    jtandy: BP9
    ... Josh had an action to talk to Christine about the augmented
    reality community
    ... we should start a discussion on whether to merge BP9 and

    joshlieberman_: relative positioning is often about a reference
    system, so a bit different to spatial relationships

    jtandy: so maybe closer to the CRS work that Byron has been

    joshlieberman_: it's about describing a position relative to
    another object or to a human perspective

    jtandy: I know you are working on BP1 too, but could I ask you
    to lead BP9 as well?

    joshlieberman_: yes

    jtandy: I'll start a discussion thread for whether we need a
    'samePlaceAs' property
    ... BP14 depends on vocabulary choices. Depends to some extent
    on BP10. Lars said he'd check with German colleagues about the
    Beacon format

    LarsG: yes, it looks like it should work fine

    jtandy: I'll take the lead on BP14
    ... BP16 is vague and partly covered by DWBP so I suggest
    deleting and moving anything useful to BP10
    ... any objections to that?

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say that this is partially
    included also in BP8 - geometry complexity

    AndreaPerego: I see a relation between BP16 and BP8
    ... so good idea to delete

    jtandy: Section 11 on how to use the BPs will be easier once
    the individual BPs are more advanced
    ... next block is Spatial data access and APIs
    ...BP11: 'convenience APIs'
    ... since we started the WG, a lot of what we wanted to say has
    been added to DWBP
    ... so we need to think about how we tie things back to DWBP
    and what is special about spatial data with respect to APIs
    ... Can anyone on the call take the lead on moving BP11 along?

    ClemensPortele volunteers to work on BP11

    jtandy: Bart's work is relevant to BP11 - coordinate with
    Clemens on this

    AndreaPerego: I can add another example for BP11 around the CSW
    ... many of our examples are more about Spatial Things than

    joshlieberman: OGC APIs serve Features rather than Geometries
    ... there is an aspiration to extend that but not yet an
    established practice

    jtandy: can we add a placeholder for this before the Delft
    meeting (as no substantive changes after that)
    ... minor work to do on BP12 and BP13. Could move those to next
    sprint if necessary

    <joshlieberman> That said, OGC services are used to reference
    features with geometries, that are then linked to by objects
    representing other feature properties (e.g. demographic info
    linked to population units).

    jtandy: properties that change over time. BP6 nearly complete.
    Linda asking Geonovum colleagues for examples
    ... Editorial questions. BP2 - long discussion on mailing list
    about units of measure
    ... suggest removing this BP unless we can identify something
    specifically spatial

    AndreaPerego: there is an example of units of measures in the
    examples, copied from DWBP, about spatial resolution
    ... example 15 is taken from Data Quality Vocabulary
    ... and we need to make sure we don't provide conflicting

    jtandy: will start new discussion thread around deleting BP2
    ... we need to review public comments

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask for clarity on a couple of
    points in the new publiction


      [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-sdw-bp-20170216/#sotd

    phila: I need help on the Status of this Document section.

    jtandy: item 3 still pending. Item 4 will be done this time.
    Still want feedback on BP7

    <joshlieberman> bye

    jtandy: thanks to folks who agreed to own secions of the

    <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

    thanks and bye

    <ClemensPortele> thanks, bye

    <BartvanLeeuwen> thx

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: phila to talk to OGC, Andrea etc. about liaison
    wrt Data Exchange WG [recorded in

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [17]Previous minutes approved

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 17:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 February 2017 17:12:56 UTC