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

[Minutes COV] 2017 03 15

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:03:43 +0000
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7ba3a2fe-c005-9c2a-26a1-8b4d37792e0e@w3.org>
The minutes of the Coverages sub group call just ended are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/15-sdwcov-minutes and copied below.

Please note that the CoverageJSON doc at
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/ is ready for review ahead of the 
Delft meeting where the WG will be asked to consider publishing it as a 

        Spatial Data on the Web Coverages Sub Group Teleconference

15 March 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [3] http://ww.w3.org/2017/03/15-sdwcov-irc


           Rob, billroberts, kerry, phila, sam_toyer

           Jon, Scott




      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]preliminaries
          2. [6]Patent Call
          3. [7]CoverageJSON
          4. [8]QB4ST
          5. [9]AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes


    <billroberts> [12]https://ww.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwcov-minutes

      [12] https://ww.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwcov-minutes

    billroberts: Any comments on the minutes?


    <roba> +1

    <billroberts> [13]https://ww.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/

      [13] https://ww.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

    Resolved: Previous minutes accepted

Patent Call

    billroberts: Catching up with the threads

    <billroberts> [14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/


    billroberts: That's the latest editor's draft
    … Jon has done some useful work on this in the last 2-3 weeks.
    … Some things could do with a tidy up, like references and
    boiler plate text
    … But in high level terms. We were going to propose this as a
    FPWD, but had a discussion on where the actual spec should go.
    Decision was to keep spec separate
    … May then go through proper standardisation process. Now just
    referenced from this doc

    billroberts: Still to do - references

    <kerry> phila: a custom sentence that give an indication of
    maturity -- comments sought, how many more iterations..

    phila: Explains the SotD section

    [15]ODRL model

      [15] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#privacyConsiderations

    Action: phila To investigate what's required for privacy etc,
    for non-Rec Track docs

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Investigate what's required for
    privacy etc, for non-rec track docs [on Phil Archer - due

    billroberts: Apart from that, the doc is near to complete so
    I'm happy to put it forward as a FPWD

    kerry: Just looking at it... section 6 looks like an appendix.
    The table is good - just the section looks like we wrote it
    because we had to
    … Something about satisfaction of UCR, reference to UCR etc.
    Mapping sounds too process-driven

    kerry: Actually, it's more the word document I don't like. I'd
    like it to be more positive

    roba: It's the word document that jumps out to me

    kerry: We have developed UCRs for coverages

    roba: Either call it use cases and Reqs or just Reqs

    billroberts: I wanted to mention UCs as wew have an output
    called that, but happy to remove the word document

    [16]How DWWBP handled it - very appendix like

      [16] https://ww.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#requirements

    phila: Actually, that DWWBP table was auto-generated

    kerry: Another thing - the BPs... how do we deliver or not to
    the BPs
    … That doc has a fair bit to say on the topic

    billroberts: I could add a section to talk about that

    roba: Can I suggest that we try and deal with this in the F2F.
    This wasn't available when the BP doc was written

    roba: If we're claiming that this is a BP then the BP doc
    should back that up.
    … We need to reference stuff in the future work section

    billroberts: Both docs are evolving, yes


      [17] http://ww.specref.org/?q=qb4st

    <roba> [18]http://ww.specref.org/?q=sdw

      [18] http://ww.specref.org/?q=sdw

    <billroberts> specref: it's great!

    kerry: do we need to say/do anything about Maik dropping out of
    group? Think somewhere in document?

    <kerry> billroberts: comments on QB4ST , interested in dggs

    billroberts: Have you had time to read the comments I sent

    sam_toyer: Thanks for sending the comments - very helpful. Not
    had a chance to incorporate them yet

    billroberts: On the implementation section - strawman of
    current DBs good idea. Current set up does handle filters in
    reasonably intelligent eway
    … Goes into the DGS
    … Quite fast. Can view DDGS as a kind of index.

    billroberts: Interesting. I think it woujld be good to add
    something on that to the document. That provides insight into
    why using the DDGS provides efficiency

    <roba> qb dimensions are usually indexes

    billroberts: So I made a pull request of just trivial changes
    … my comments worth looking at are in the email. Stuff in the
    PR are mostly typos and minor wording changes
    … Please look through and merge (or I can)

    kerry: I can do that

    billroberts: Anythign more on EO-QB?
    … Anything you want us to talk about in Delft?

    kerry: I don't think we'll have a significant increment for the
    … The main thing we needed to do is the mapping
    … More work on how the client works with it and more on the
    BPs. I don't think wew'll have that in a good enough state to
    put up for a vote

    billroberts: what's the current end of WG life date?

    kerry: 30 June

    billroberts: So we have 3 months
    … They'll pass quickly for all of us.
    … So you're thinking one more iteration?

    kerry: Yes. I was hoping this would be it but we're going to
    miss it.

    billroberts: Any more of EO-QB?


    billroberts: Just to note - I had a proper look the other day
    and sent some notes and a pull request which, again, is very
    trivial and Rob's already responded.
    … There's a place holder for an example section - I think that
    would be very useful
    … Rob said he was hoping the EO-QB stuff would provide those

    billroberts: A lot of the doc is quite abstract but the
    principles are clear enough
    … Examples would help make it less abstract

    roba: The actual example I was looking for was more ?? I'd like
    to link it up more with CoverageJSON
    … I was wondering whether there was a more canonical example
    where we use CoverageJSON
    … ANd then I can give an example of what the QB4ST metadata
    would look like
    … I can look again at the DDGS hierarchy
    … I can havea a go at doing that in conversation with you

    billroberts: Sounds interesting but I think we should give Jon
    Blower a shout

    roba: If you have real world services... it's easier to look
    at... describing an existing non-RDF thing that has harder
    slicing and dicing
    … where there are APIs and services for the hierarchical data

    roba: Once it's in the more flexible RDF version you lose the

    billroberts: I'll ask Jon for a simple but reasonably
    representative example

    billroberts: I think what's important is taking the RDF QB

    roba: It's a lightweight vocab for doing these things

    roba: Let's see if we can get that example and get that final
    version out.

    billroberts: And you think one more round will do it?

    roba: Not a lot of comments and this is going out as
    experimental so, yes

    roba: But noting that others might want to run with this, we
    may need to do more

    phila: Rambles on about responsibility to 'get it right' as far
    as possible

    roba: QB4St doesn't cover as much as it could
    … Some sort of standard vocab for this is useful
    … It can do more

    phila: Then I look forward to those being added in future

    billroberts: Anything you want us to cover next week in Delft?

    roba: Nothing major
    … It's being referenced as a future work piece in the BP doc

    roba: One slight question - I have yet to merge Bill's pull
    request as I'm not sure wwhether you had included that in your

    billroberts: I didn't check that there were(n't) other PRs

    roba: May need clarification... it's bad form to accept your
    own pull requests?

    phila: Don't get too hung up on it :-)

    billroberts: I'm happy to take a look if you're going to feel
    more comfortable.

    roba: That would be very helpful

    billroberts: Then I think our session in Delft is going to
    principally be the vote on CoevrageJSON and an update on the
    status of the others. And how we link up with the BP doc.

    billroberts: I'm assuming that the Australian contingent won't
    be in Delft

    <kerry> [19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/


    billroberts: I requested a morning slot so you can dial in

    kerry: There's the link to the agenda. It's at a reasonable
    … SSN is also keen for a morning slot too
    … We can't get into the building until 08:45
    … The question, if SSN starts at 08:45, then breaks for
    coverage and then goes back to SSN - might be easier for Armin

    billroberts: I'll be there all day. Any time is OK for me
    … It's about how late the coverage session can be. It's about
    how late it can be for Australia
    … Later is OK for me but I'm local

    kerry: The earlier slot might work too

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about 08:45

    phila: Doors open at 08:45 doesn't mean starting at that time

    billroberts: It makes more sense to do SSN in a block

    kerry: 9 or 12 sound reasonable

    roba: Like that coverage will be short and sweet

    kerry: That's a reason to put it first

    billroberts: So let's make coverage 9-10 (might not even be
    that long) and then SSN

    kerry: Fine by me

    sam_toyer: And OK with me


    billroberts: Kerry noted that Maik R has formally left the WG.
    As he's an author, is there anything that needs to be done?
    … Can he be an ex-member and still an author

    phila: Yes

    <kerry> and affiliation stays as is at Reading?

    <kerry> bye!

    <billroberts> bye

Summary of Action Items

     1. [20]phila To investigate what's required for privacy etc,
        for non-Rec Track docs

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [21]Previous minutes accepted
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 21:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:05 UTC