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

[Minutes BP] 2017-03-01 call

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:07:35 +0100
To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <039501d292ae$53072e30$f9158a90$@w3.org>
Hi all,

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

... and copied as raw text below.


Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices Sub Group Teleconference
01 March 2017

   [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170301
      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-sdwbp-irc


          AndreaPerego, BartvanLeeuwen, ByronCinNZ,
          ClemensPortele, Francois, Linda, MattPerry,
          ScottSimmons, eparsons, joshlieberman, jtandy

          BillRoberts, Lars, Phil




     * [4]Meeting Minutes
         1. [5]approving the minutes
         2. [6]patent call
         3. [7]sprint plan
         4. [8]Decision: are non-geographic CRS out of scope
         5. [9]Review progress on BP8
         6. [10]Progress on BP 11, 12 and 13
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

approving the minutes

   <jtandy> [13]https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes

   <jtandy> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1


   <AndreaPerego> +1

   <joshlieberman> +1

   <eparsons> +1

   <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

   <ByronCinNZ> +1

   Resolved: meeting minutes approved

patent call

   <eparsons> [14]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

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

   eparsons: reads out patent call


sprint plan


     [15] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#February_-_mid_March_2017:

   jtandy: sprint plan is on the wiki.
   … josh, you're on BP1, do you recognize that?

   joshlieberman: yes, with Andrea

   jtandy: Andrea: you're on 8
   … 9 is addressed to joshlieberman

   joshlieberman: working on that with Christine Perey

   jtandy: content of that may be merged with bp10 or 14
   … I spoke with Bill, he knows he's on BP10
   … I'm on 14, 16 will be merged
   … section 11 will be based on work we're doing now
   … bp11 is Clemens with support from Bart

   ClemensPortele: yes

   BartvanLeeuwen: aware

   jtandy: continues going through sprint plan

   <joshlieberman> BP12 ?

   jtandy: payam is creating a list of comments we need to go
   … a lot of work but nothing stopping us from meeting the Delft
   … Clemens will address BP12 later in this call

Decision: are non-geographic CRS out of scope

   jtandy: there is no expertise in the WG on non-geographic CRS,
   therefore add to our scope section that this is out

   eparsons: agrees, unfortunately

   joshlieberman: engineering coordinate systems can be tied into
   geographic CRS but often just relative to some structure.
   … also note the egocentric perspective which comes from AR
   … it's worth mentioning that this is a perspective, without
   offering a BP

   ByronCinNZ: leans towards exclusion of non-geo
   … the doc is primarily geospatial so people from other domains
   will not look for info here
   … both for cellular positioning and engineering

   jtandy: coming back to joshlieberman's comment;
   … agrees we ought to mention them

   joshlieberman: there would be material for an engineering CRS
   … making engineering data sharable by tying points to
   geographic CRS

   jtandy: this would be the place for AR info as well?

   joshlieberman: yes

   jtandy: proposes to ignore the cellular level in terms of
   … and include in the next sprint a BP about engineering CRSs
   and tying them back to geographic CRS

   joshlieberman: it could be an addition to BP9, if we make that
   relative and local positioning

   eparsons: and I could add a sentence or two to the intro
   … something about global vs local CRS and engineering drawings
   being a subset of that

   jtandy: please do
   … joshlieberman, I encourage you to develop BP9 along the lines
   you've just outlined.
   … do you think that's possible within this sprint?

   Action: eparsons to expand intro to include CAD drawings as
   another type of CRS

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Expand intro to include cad
   drawings as another type of crs [on Ed Parsons - due

   joshlieberman: yes

Review progress on BP8

   <AndreaPerego> Current status:

     [16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0008.html

   AndreaPerego: I've completed the revision based on the
   discussion so far.

   <AndreaPerego> Preview:

     [17] https://andrea-perego.github.io/sdw/bp/index.html#describe-geometry

   AndreaPerego: I made a fork on my github
   … new parts in yellow, I kept also the original text
   … revised the why and intended outcome sections, mostly the
   … the rest is revised more thoroughly with more structure and
   more actionable guidelines
   … there are several notes
   … trying to describe the approaches in web, LD and geospatial
   … and added three examples

   (describes the examples in more detail)

   AndreaPerego: asks for feedback

   jtandy: thanks AndreaPerego for the work he put in

   <AndreaPerego> :)

   jtandy: did you find gaps in practice about how you ask for
   particular geometry representation?

   AndreaPerego: this is the part causing more trouble
   … first you identify the users and applications
   … then you provide in different ways accordingly
   … I referred to what was already discussed in other parts of
   the BP eg about dimensions, crs, formats (the table in the
   … these tables are quite useful
   … referencing DWBP on conneg
   … of course there is not much detail but we could provide more
   detail in the examples
   … please let me know if more is needed
   … in my examples multiple representations of a spatial thing
   are all embedded in the thing

   jtandy: joshlieberman, you mentioned the next version of
   geosparql might make it easy to identify things like bbox,
   center point.
   … is that worth referring to?

   joshlieberman: coming slow. But will be something simple like
   georss as a core and adding more complexity from geosparql.
   … but in the core there are currently no geometry role
   … there ARE geometry role properties in the core
   … The other issue is the distinction between positions and
   … important not to have just a geometry literal. A geometry has
   characteristics that need to be available. Type of geometry,
   dimensionality etc
   … And there are different serialization options for the
   position list.
   … geosparql used extended wkt for a reason
   … bp should be to treat that as a position literal and provide
   the geometry characteristics outside the literal as well
   … will look through AndreaPerego's work

   <AndreaPerego> Thanks, Josh

   AndreaPerego: thanks a lot joshlieberman

   ClemensPortele: when we talk about multiple representations we
   need to recognize there's also the difference between
   vocabularies where you represent spatial things and the
   geometry is a characteristic,
   … with one serialization,
   … or vocabularies that have different serialization options
   … e.g. GML or GeoJSON vs GeoSPARQL

   AndreaPerego: was trying to take this issue into account

   <joshlieberman_> GeoSPARQL: asWKT vs asGML, etc.

   AndreaPerego: therefore tried to be generic
   … and added this in notes instead of the running text
   … to really address it you need to add a lot of detail, too
   much for a BP
   … a review by ClemensPortele might help

   <ClemensPortele> will do ...

   jtandy: you are going in the right direction based on the
   discussion today

   <AndreaPerego> Thanks, Clemens!

   jtandy: all: please continue to support AndreaPerego in
   unpicking this topic

Progress on BP 11, 12 and 13

   <ClemensPortele> New text:

     [18] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api

   ClemensPortele: I just updated the section at the link, both
   the intro and BP11.
   … haven't touched BP12 and 13 yet
   … but my feeling is we don't necessarily need these two.
   … The last versions of DWBP had updated info on the API topic.
   I consolidated our text with this.
   … making sure we build on that and focus on spatial aspects
   … and SDI related topics
   … the old BP11 had some ideas for examples, I deleted several
   of them eg WPS, WMS. These are not really convenience APIs.
   … Bart should check if his content is covered correctly
   … DWBP has info on subsets of large datasets. We can't add that
   much to it. Coverages is addressed separately.
   … potentially we could do a subset example in BP11. Same goes
   for search.
   … therefore BP12 and BP13 could go.

   jtandy: BP13 is well covered by DWBP.
   … I'd like to propose this to a larger group before deciding.
   Could you start a discussion thread about dropping BP13?

   ClemensPortele: ok

   <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about BP13

   Action: ClemensPortele to start a discussion thread on the
   mailing list about dropping BP13.

   <trackbot> Error finding 'ClemensPortele'. You can review and
   register nicknames at

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

   action Clemens Portele to start a discussion thread on the
   mailing list about dropping BP13.

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Portele to start a discussion
   thread on the mailing list about dropping bp13. [on Clemens
   Portele - due 2017-03-08].

   jtandy: is search special / does it need its own BP?

   joshlieberman: not sure, it could be merged into something
   about APIs.
   … e.g. what search options would we want to recommend.

   <ClemensPortele> Current text: "The API should support queries
   for spatial things based on user needs. For spatial data, a
   typical need is to support searching data located in a specific
   area, for example, an area shown as a map in an application.
   Where users often look for a particular spatial thing without
   knowning its identifier, a fault-tolerant free-text search on
   the name, label or other property may be useful."

   jtandy: part of a convenience api is providing search for cases
   where users don't know the identifiers of spatial things.
   … would that be enough?

   ClemensPortele: is the current text (pasted above) enough?

   joshlieberman: the other important thing is some sort of
   neighborhood search.

   jtandy: makes sense

   ClemensPortele: will add that

   joshlieberman: near and within covers about 80% of spatial

   jtandy: so we've agreed here that given the minor amendment of
   BP11, BP12 can go.

   <joshlieberman> prese

   jtandy: wrapping up, I will continue pushing discussions on
   sameplaceas and BP2.
   … Ed, when we resolve to remove BPs, should we have minuted
   resolutions in a plenary call?

   eparsons: yes

   jtandy: then it would be useful to have those resolutions in
   the next plenary call.

   eparsons: drop me an email to remind

   jtandy: thanks everyone including demon Linda

   <BartvanLeeuwen> thx

   <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

   <ClemensPortele> thanks and bye!

   <BartvanLeeuwen> bye

   <eparsons> Thanks Linda + jtandy

   <jtandy> bye!

   jtandy: meeting closed

   <joshlieberman> bye


Summary of Action Items

    1. [20]eparsons to expand intro to include CAD drawings as
       another type of CRS
    2. [21]ClemensPortele to start a discussion thread on the
       mailing list about dropping BP13.

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [22]meeting minutes approved

    Minutes formatted by Bert Bos's [23]scribe.perl version 2.13
    (2017/02/25 02:24:22), a reimplementation of David Booth's
    [24]scribe.perl. See [25]CVS log.

     [23] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe2/scribedoc.html
     [24] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [25] https://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe2/
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 17:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:04 UTC