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

[Minutes BP] 2017 13 15

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:08:14 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <26327c2f-93d3-7556-a804-9f3475426d37@w3.org>
The minutes of today's BP meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-sdwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.

Expect to see a frozen version of the doc tomorrow morning ready for 
review en route to Delft (physically or virtually).

Snapshot below.


           Spatial Data on the Web BP Sub Group Teleconference

15 March 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170315
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-sdwbp-irc

Attendees

    Present
           AndreaPerego, ByronCinNZ, Francois, Linda, MattPerry,
           billroberts, jtandy, phila

    Regrets
           Clemens, Lars, Scott

    Chair
           Lord Tandy

    Scribe
           phila

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Approve previous week's minutes
          2. [6]Cross reference Feb/Mar Sprint plan
          3. [7]BP 2
          4. [8]BP8
          5. [9]BP10
          6. [10]BP14
          7. [11]BP16
          8. [12]BP11 access adn APIs
          9. [13]BP6
         10. [14]Editorial
         11. [15]BP9
         12. [16]BP2
         13. [17]BP15
         14. [18]Section 14
         15. [19]Section 13
         16. [20]Agenda planning for F2F
      * [21]Summary of Action Items
      * [22]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

    jtandy: I recognise everyone on the IRC and WebEx
    … Let's deal with the Patent Call

Approve previous week's minutes

    <Linda> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <tidoust> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    Resolved: Previous week's minutes approved

Cross reference Feb/Mar Sprint plan

    <jtandy> [23]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
    Detailed_planning_BP_document#February_-_mid_March_2017:

      [23] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#February_-_mid_March_2017:

    jtandy: BP1 - no Josh today. Any e-mail from him?

    Linda: Nope

    [Josh arrives]

    jtandy: You said you had BP1 under control

    joshlieberman: I may not have used those terms but I'm working
    on a branch.

    jtandy: Will BP1 make it to a PR before tomorrow morning Europe

    jtandy: Of the 2 you have, BP9 is the priority - we know what
    to do about BP1, it's 9 that needs more work.
    … So, will there be a BP1 pull request before tomorrow morning.

    joshlieberman: I'm working on BP9 but will have something on
    BP1 before tomorrow

BP 2

    jtandy: In the plenary, we said we could remove BP2 which I
    think I can now go ahead and remove
    … There's an open issue about the URN stuff that we need to put
    in the conclusions. But I think I can delete BP2
    … Looking at next sprint. I see the open challenges to go into
    expressing units
    … Is anyone not happy with deleting BP2 later today?>

    [Crickets]

    Action: jtandy To remove BP2

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Remove bp2 [on Jeremy Tandy -
    due 2017-03-22].

    jtandy: back to the detailed planning spring

BP8

    jtandy: Andrea has been very busy and working late
    … Got another couple of changes to make this evening. Expecting
    pull request shortly
    … Looking good IMO

    Linda: It's becoming a clear BP with useful actionable info

BP10

    jtandy: I bring people's attention to a note from Bill who says
    he may be here but will be late

    jtandy: He, Linda and I have been chatting about what he's been
    doing with BP10

    <jtandy> [24]https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/bill-bp10/bp/
    index.html#semantic-thing

      [24] https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/bill-bp10/bp/index.html#semantic-thing

    jtandy: That's what Bill has beenn doing so far

    <joshlieberman> Re: BP-9 the Guildford example confuses
    relative and approximate, but I (no londoner) cannot figure out
    the location being referenced. Help?

    jtandy: There are some significant updates there.
    … There will be a continuation of BP10 in the next sprint
    … Introduction of the same place as a property - TBD in Delft

BP14

    jtandy: Linda has pointed out that there have been so many
    updates it's now about 3 BPs. Lots to talk about in Delft.
    … We'll be talking about how to put things in the right order.

BP16

    jtandy: This will be merged with BP10

    billroberts: Yes, I am aiming to submit a pull request this
    evening for a half decent attempt at BP10

    billroberts: That will mean deleting BP16 and leaving a place
    holder

    jtandy: As you're here, AndreaPerego - we note that BP8 is
    looking a lot better than before. Are you expecting to put in a
    new PR?

    AndreaPerego: It depends on the timing.
    … When do we freeze?

    jtandy: Can you, Linda, merge any PRs tomorrow morning

    Action: Linda to merge outstanding pull requests, Thursday 16th
    a.m.

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Merge outstanding pull
    requests, thursday 16th a.m. [on Linda van den Brink - due
    2017-03-22].

    jtandy: 07:00 UTC is the target time

    AndreaPerego: The points that are still open still require some
    consideration
    … Not sure if it will be done by tomorrow

    jtandy: IIRC, there are some small changes. Others that need
    more, I'm content that they continue into the next sprint

    AndreaPerego: Small changes, no problem

    jtandy: After the merge, can you send an e-mail to the list to
    say the doc is frozen ahead of a vote on Monday

    Linda: Anything else, like the status section?

    jtandy: That can be done Monday onwards

BP11 access adn APIs

    jtandy: Clemens has done
    … More on CRS has been done and is stable
    … Byron you made some inroads into ??

    ByronCinNZ: I'm happy with that's been happening

    jtandy: So 3 and 17 are good.

BP6

    Linda: I just changed the title a little and added two examples
    … One is of changing municipality boundaries
    … the other is about Alps
    … for the rest, I think BP6 is done.

Editorial

    jtandy: We're leaving stubs in the doc to retain numbering
    … Ed has put some stuff into the CRS introductory material
    about engineering practice

BP9

    joshlieberman: I don't have it to show you, but I'm going to
    introduce perspectives from AR to discuss relative to a
    stationary, moving object anda perspective
    … Those are the three things

    joshlieberman: There's an example at the beginning of the doc
    about Guildford and London Bridge which I find confusing.

    jtandy: Go for different examples - that'll be easier.

    jtandy: There's not a lot of stuff in BP9 to date. I think the
    floor is yours.

    jtandy: We're expecting a PR this evening

    joshlieberman: Yes

BP2

    jtandy: I havea an action to do that, which will be there for
    you to merge tomorrow

BP15

    jtandy: That one has gone, as have 12 and 13

Section 14

    jtandy: Plan says that was for you to remove Linda.

    Linda: I can do it tomorrow before the merges

    jtandy: The material won't go away, it'll be in GH, but that
    should just work.

    Linda: Should I leave a stub?

    jtandy: I don't think so.
    … I left a stub for appendix B but thgat's all

Section 13

    jtandy: Talks about other BPs. We'll leave this as it is. It's
    for BPs that haven't bene put in place yet
    … So that can stay

    Linda: OK

    jtandy: We'll get rid of the section on the next sprint.

    jtandy: Linda has handled the ReSpec 'errors'

    jtandy: So we're looking health for this sprint - thank you.

    [Applause]

    Linda: I think it's the best sprint yet

    jtandy: we're getting faster at the end of the marathon

    jtandy: BP8 and 10 will have work in the next sprint

    <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to talk about two missing
    things in BP8

    AndreaPerego: Just to say... 2 things missing from BP8 -
    comments by Clemens and Josh in the calls.
    … There wasn't time to do this, but I'd appreciate time from
    them both to see if what I've doine is OK, if not, what else
    needs to be done

    jtandy: This is, I think, about not using a literal on its own,
    but wrapping it inside a geometry object

    joshlieberman: Yes, distinguish position from geometry
    … Better to have a geometry that has accessible properties

    jtandy: So Josh can you pls talk to Andrea offline - this won't
    make this sprint

    AndreaPerego: I'd like to include what I can

    joshlieberman: Should we insert an issue?

    jtandy: Andrea feel free to if you want to

    AndreaPerego: We can do it via the mailing list. For tracking
    purposes I guess it's better, so I'll do that.

    <jtandy> In our calls, Josh mentioned that "best practice" is
    that where geometry literals are used (e.g. WKT, GML etc.) you
    should that wrap these in _geometry objects_ that provide a
    little metadata about that geometry; e.g. dimensionality, CRS
    etc. This avoids having to load another parser to determine if
    the geometry is useful. GML does this to some degree in the
    @attributes srsName, srsDimension, axisLabels etc. I think Josh
    was referring to similar constructs

    <jtandy> such as GeoSPARQL's geosparql:Geometry class which may
    have the following attributes: geo:dimension,
    geo:coordinateDimension, geo:spatialDimension, geo:isEmpty,
    geo:isSimple, geo:hasSerialization

    jtandy: I just inserted the text I gave you as feedback

    AndreaPerego: We have a placeholder at the end of BP8

    jtandy: Yes

    joshlieberman: I'll compose an e-mail that we can work from

    jtandy: Thank you Andrea

    <AndreaPerego> :)

Agenda planning for F2F

    jtandy: For those on the call...
    … Who will be there?

    <billroberts> Tuesday only

    <AndreaPerego> I'll be there, but have to leave at 5PM on Tue.

    <joshlieberman> josh will be present, but in and out due to
    other sessions.

    [25]Attending F2F

      [25] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F6

    phila: I've not heard whether Simon is or isn't going to be
    there

    Linda: I guess not

    <jtandy> [26]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
    Meetings:F2F6#Monday_20th_March

      [26] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F6#Monday_20th_March

    jtandy: The meeting page...

    jtandy: You'll see that we have a draft agenda which is a list
    of topics.
    … SSN have the first 90 minutes, then we take a generous break
    … and we start the BP work and go to the end of the day.

    jtandy: What I propose is that on the day, we shuffle those
    into the right order

    jtandy: Let's make sure we're not missing anything we want to
    talk about in Delft

    jtandy: Interoperability problems. Like conneg doesn't always
    work

    jtandy: I guess the new WG might solve that

    [27]DXWG

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

    jtandy: Profile will be able to select on CRS etc

    phila: Yes

    jtandy: We need to review our outsanding comments

    <jtandy> [28]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
    Detailed_planning_BP_document#Review_public_comments

      [28] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Review_public_comments

    jtandy: Payam read through the list
    … 8 comments to deal with, one very long
    … A lot of them will be time expired - but we'll need to go
    through them

    jtandy: We need to spend time on the final sprint plan
    … I've written in a use case and requirements review to make
    sure we haven't forgotten anything

    jtandy: We should do it, but not necessarily in Delft.

    jtandy: We said we'd deal with spatial operators, which we
    haven't

    jtandy: The same place as proposal, we'll look at
    … That's now in BP14

    jtandy: Since I wrote that, I noticed in the OS Ireland data,
    they use a relationship from open vocabs called similarTo
    … positioned between owl:sameAs and rdfs:seeAlso

    jtandy: How many open issues do we have

    jtandy: Would you be able to prioritise them before Monday?

    Linda: I think I can do that

    joshlieberman: Spatial rels and operators - have we covered
    everything
    … Maybe we should say that in some areas we have concluded that
    there is no BP that we can cite
    … e.g. geoSPARQL - we can put this into future work

    [29]wish List

      [29] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wish_List

    <joshlieberman> Re: spatial relations - it's largely a timing
    issue with modularizing / simplifying GeoSPARQL 1.0, so a very
    concrete wish for next group.

    phila: Talks about the wish list and why it's useful for
    possible future work

    jtandy: The parts I talked about - defining open issues etc.
    might be the basis

    <billroberts> sorry, got to go. See most of you in Delft

    jtandy: Also, we need to make sure that we have a quick pass
    through all the examples and BPs that we have so far and
    categorise them into BP and good ideas

    jtandy: I guess we should vote early and then get on with the
    next sprint

    jtandy: Any more issues to add to the list?

    phila: Yes, there will be remote participation options. I'll
    set up the WebEx straight after this meeting

    phila: Remember that the US is already on DST

    Linda: I have a slight scheduling conflict as I'm supposed to
    be at the opening plenary

    jtandy: Discusses Delft agenda with everyone

    <Linda> bye

    <AndreaPerego> Bye!

    <jtandy> bye for now

    <joshlieberman> bye

Summary of Action Items

     1. [30]jtandy To remove BP2
     2. [31]Linda to merge outstanding pull requests, Thursday 16th
        a.m.

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [32]Previous week's minutes approved
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 17:08:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 March 2017 17:08:25 UTC