- 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>
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
FPWD.
Spatial Data on the Web Coverages Sub Group Teleconference
15 March 2017
[2]Agenda [3]IRC log
[2]
https://ww.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20170315
[3] http://ww.w3.org/2017/03/15-sdwcov-irc
Attendees
Present
Rob, billroberts, kerry, phila, sam_toyer
Regrets
Jon, Scott
Chair
Bill
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [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
preliminaries
<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?
NOTUC
<roba> +1
<billroberts> [13]https://ww.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/
Patent_Call
[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/
CoverageJSON
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
2017-03-22].
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]SpecRef
[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
F2F
… 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?
QB4ST
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
examples
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
challenge
billroberts: I'll ask Jon for a simple but reasonably
representative example
billroberts: I think what's important is taking the RDF QB
principles...
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
PR.
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/
Meetings:F2F6#Tuesday_21st_March
[19]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F6#Tuesday_21st_March
billroberts: I requested a morning slot so you can dial in
kerry: There's the link to the agenda. It's at a reasonable
time
… 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
AOB
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