- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:38:23 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of the final BP sub group call are at https://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes with a text snapshot below. Jeremy took us through the last of the issues and pull requests before a vote to publish an updated version of the doc. From a WG point of view, this work is now complete and a new iteration of the doc will be published tomorrow. At this point, OGC process takes over. There will be a webinar on Monday at 14:00 UTC at which Jeremy will present the document to the OGC TC. This kicks off the formal review period during which comments may be made. Once dealt with, the document can become an OGC Best Practices doc. As this is a WG Note in W3C terms, there is no equivalent process (we only do this for Rec Track docs). If there are comments from the TC, then an updated version of the doc will need to be created, but essentially, it's done. The meeting expressed sincere thanks to the editors and major contributors for this excellent work. A text snapshot of today's minutes are included below. Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 10 May 2017 [2]Agenda [3]IRC log [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170510 [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-irc Attendees Present AndreaPerego, billroberts, ByronCinNZ, ChrisLittle, eparsons, Francois, jtandy, LarsG, MattPerry, phila Regrets Bart, Linda, Payam, Scott, Simon Chair Jeremy Scribe phila Contents * [4]Meeting Minutes 1. [5]approve minutes 2. [6]Patent CAll 3. [7]Sprint Status Review 4. [8]Remaining Issues 5. [9]Public comments 6. [10]Review pending Pull Requests for the BP doc 7. [11]Vote to release a 'final' Working Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice Note 8. [12]Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote 9. [13]Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote 10. [14]AOB * [15]Summary of Action Items * [16]Summary of Resolutions Meeting Minutes approve minutes <jtandy> [17]https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes [17] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes <jtandy> +1 <eparsons> +1 <billroberts> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <ClemensPortele> +1 <ChrisLittle> +1 Resolved: /www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/28-sdw bp-minutes/Previous minutes approved [18]https://www.w3.org/ 2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/28-sdwbp-minutes// www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes [18] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/28-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes Patent CAll <eparsons> [19]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call [19] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Sprint Status Review <jtandy> [20]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/ Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017: [20] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017: jtandy: We did everything except the bits Josh was going to do in BP9 jtandy: I think having the plan like that has been helpful … Any questions on the sprint status? [None] <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say we've probably approved the wrong minutes - the last minutes should be here: [21]https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes [21] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes Remaining Issues <jtandy> [22]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/ issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abp [22] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues?q=is:open+is:issue+label:bp jtandy: Not going to get a great deal of discussion as most have a PR associated with them. jtandy: These are the 4 BP issues <jtandy> [23]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/237 [23] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/237 jtandy: This asks whether our list of file formats should include scientific file formats phila: DWBP avoided discussion of formats jtandy: We discussed this in Delft - and decided to include some. … Personally, I think that the scientific formats are difficult for general Web usage eparsons: I don't feel strongly, but ... remembering our primary audience. For that mass of people how important are scientific formats for them? jtandy: I agree ChrisLittle: I suggest we put them as examples of how not to do it. Here are some formats with lots of data that are not accessible but used for good tech and historical reasons … That might be a nudge to owners of those data sets to offer something else eparsons: I'll be in St Johns for some of the meeting jtandy: Chris will be there. jtandy: I hear that we don't need to fix it right now. The wider Web community prob won't want those. AndreaPerego: I agree that we pro shouldn't include those in the table. But I'm concerned about saying this is a worst practice as it will open a can of worms. … Saying what you shouldn't do means providing evidence for why. jtandy: I also don't like saying this is bad. … What I think I hear from Chris is why you might not want to use the following list of sci formats. jtandy: Can you make a note ChrisLittle to say that in St Johns <jtandy> [24]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/858 [24] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/858 jtandy: This is about the ack section. … Purely editorial. … We can tidy up the acknowledgement section. We can decide who is and isn't on the list <jtandy> [25]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/869 [25] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/869 jtandy: There's a PR related to this … I put in a namespace table, Clemens suggested it wasn't very helpful. <jtandy> [26]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/873 [26] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/873 jtandy: That's adding an id to each example so we can use it phila: Agh! I though ReSpec added IDs to examples <jtandy> [27]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/ Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments [27] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments Public comments jtandy: All done except the one marked for Linda to resolve. <jtandy> [Linda] This is on dataset discovery - it's not a direct comment but can be added as an example to the relevant BP <jtandy> [28]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ public-sdw-comments/2016Sep/0005.html [28] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Sep/0005.html jtandy: Linda had a look and said there wasn't really any change to make. <AndreaPerego> I agree. eparsons: I agree, it's more an FYI from Dan. Review pending Pull Requests for the BP doc jtandy: Next point is to review our pending pull requests <jtandy> [29]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/ pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp [29] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is:open+is:pr+label:bp jtandy: from earliest to newest. <jtandy> [30]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/ pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp [30] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is:open+is:pr+label:bp jtandy: This is about namespaces and their prefixes jtandy: If we agree with these changes,then I can merge them straight away <ChrisLittle> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <jtandy> (largely) see here: [31]https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/ bp-edit-clemens-ns/bp/index.html#namespaces [31] https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/bp-edit-clemens-ns/bp/index.html#namespaces ClemensPortele: RDF and XML namespaces are different, so I split them into 2 different sections … I also did some corrections. … Around GeoSPARQL and GML … I split it into 2 sections and added an intro. ClemensPortele: I changed the namespaces, e.g. we had two bag namespaces jtandy: If you look at the URL I pasted, you can see the raw git PROPOSED: To accept Clemens' pull request 870 <jtandy> +1 <ClemensPortele> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <eparsons> +1 <MattPerry> +1 jtandy: I think it's a good piece of work and would like it included. <ChrisLittle> +1 Resolved: To accept Clemens' pull request 870 jtandy: That merge has been made <ChrisLittle> s/Clemene/Clemence/ <jtandy> [32]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/871 [32] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/871 jtandy: 871 is about unique thing for dctems <ChrisLittle> s/Clemence/Clemens/ AndreaPerego: Main issue was that we've been using 3 different prefixes for dcterms <ChrisLittle> * Apple spell checker! phila: Made some rambling comment about dcterms and dc not being the same - but all is well. dc:description and dcterms:description are the same <jtandy> [33]https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 [33] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 <eparsons> My DC goes to 11 !!! jtandy: Any more questions wrt Andrea's work on this? PROPOSED: Accept Andrea's pull request 871 <ClemensPortele> +1 <jtandy> +1 <eparsons> +1 <MattPerry> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <ChrisLittle> +0 <billroberts> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 (but I have a conflict of interests) Resolved: Accept Andrea's pull request 871 jtandy: I'm now merging PR 871 <jtandy> [34]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/874 [34] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/874 jtandy: Pull Request 874 AndreaPerego: This is about an example about referring to metadata published in a Web-friendly way. … The PR says it's about BP12 but actually it's about BP13 about metadata … Idea is to include it there. … It's about an API, work was done around GeoDCAT-AP … Uses CSW interface. … Idea is to provide an example for using your geospatial catalogue in a Web-friendly way and in RDF jtandy: I believe the API is experimental but the practice is not. AndreaPerego: Yes. AndreaPerego: It's a thing that can be out on top of any CSW s/CSVW/CSW/ jtandy: We should perhaps add a note that it's only about data APIs ClemensPortele: It seems clear with the example that we have there. … This is editorial. <jtandy> Add clarification about metadata API #880 <jtandy> [35]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/880 [35] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/880 jtandy: Assigned issue to Clemens … It's editorial, so I suggest we vote on accepting this PR PROPOSED: Accept Pull Request 874 <jtandy> +1 <ClemensPortele> +1 <ChrisLittle> +1 <eparsons> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <LarsG> +1 <MattPerry> +1 Resolved: Accept Pull Request 874 jtandy: I am merging the pull request <jtandy> [36]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/875 [36] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/875 jtandy: Just 2 more to go <ClemensPortele> I have to leave now, but will vote +1 on the outstanding PRs and the release of the BP document AndreaPerego: We have a BP about making data indexable by search engines … We talk about using schema.org … My proposal is to add an additional pointer to some mapping exercises … mapping DCAT-AP and geoDCAT-AP to schema.org … It's an example of a mapping of an RDF vocab to schema.org jtandy: This is just an additional Green Note … (non-normative) jtandy: If you click on the file change it's small and self-contained PROPOSED: Accept Pull request 875 <ChrisLittle> +1 <jtandy> +1 <eparsons> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <MattPerry> +1 Resolved: Accept Pull request 875 <LarsG> +1 jtandy: Merging now... <jtandy> [37]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/879 [37] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/879 jtandy: Last one is 879 tidoust: Just to satisfy PubRules. There were some markup errors and some encoding issues. We prefer Unicode Form-C apparently … There's a mistake in my... … There's a reference to the SKOS primer, so I forced it. … Both minor things from a PubRules perspective jtandy: Any questions? PROPOSED: Accept PR 879 <jtandy> +1 <ChrisLittle> +1 +1 <LarsG> +1 <MattPerry> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <eparsons> +1 Resolved: Accept PR 879 jtandy: Merging now <jtandy> [38]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/ pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp [38] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is:open+is:pr+label:bp jtandy: That's an empty list of pull requests <jtandy> Vote to release a 'final' Working Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice Note Vote to release a 'final' Working Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice Note phila: Is this the final, final vote? jtandy: There are bound to be comments/typos etc. from the TC review phila: Just clarifies - we're now in the hands of the OGC formal process for a BP doc … There is no equivalent for this doc at W3C jtandy: From our POV, this is the final version, modulo any substantive changes that come back from the TC process. eparsons: We'll need to deal with those of course. jtandy: This is like an extensive piece of outreach work phila: So you want to publish this in /TR space jtandy: Yes, so Scott can point to it jtandy: Any questions about the doc in its current state? <jtandy> [39]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/ Detailed_planning_BP_document#May_-_June_2017: [39] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#May_-_June_2017: jtandy: At the bottom of the detailed planning doc … There's a discussion about adding ORCIDs … We'll do that as and when … So, again, any comments or questions? [None] <eparsons> PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at [40]https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Draft. [40] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ <eparsons> PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at [41]https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Working Draft\/Note [41] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ <jtandy> on behalf of Clemens, Payam, Bart, Linda and Simon :: +1 <eparsons> +1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <jtandy> +1 <MattPerry> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <ChrisLittle> +1 <LarsG> +1 <billroberts> +1 <tidoust> +1 Resolved: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at [42]https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Working Draft/Note [42] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ <eparsons> Congratulations and Thanks to the Editors !!! <ChrisLittle> clap clap clap!! <LarsG> Well done, editors! Resolved: Vote of thanks to Jeremy, Linda and the major contributors Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote <AndreaPerego> Many, many thanks for the hard work done by the Editors! tidoust: Just to clarify that I'll ask for publication tomorrow for W3C Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote jtandy: Moans about having to use simplified English. +1 from the scribe <jtandy> [43]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/ Meetings#SDW_Best_Practice_Webinar [43] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#SDW_Best_Practice_Webinar <jtandy> Date: 15-May-2017 Time: 14:00 UTC Videoconference: Goto Meeting jtandy: You'll see that in order to begin the OGC TC vote, we start with a Go To Webinar … As far as I'm aware, it's just a quick run through what the doc is? eparsons: Think of it as an extended elevator pitch. jtandy: That's at 14:00 UTC on Monday jtandy: Who will try and be there? <eparsons> -1 <ByronCinNZ> +1 <ChrisLittle> probably me <LarsG> -1 phila: Is very sorry but I can't <billroberts> -1 eparsons: It's not designed for us, it's for everyone else. AOB eparsons: I'd like to formally express thanks to you, Jeremy and Linda for all the huge amount of work you've done. That on behalf of myself and Kerry <ChrisLittle> +1 +1 from phila <billroberts> +1 <AndreaPerego> +1 <LarsG> +1 <MattPerry> +1 jtandy: I see no reason for another BP sub group call jtandy: Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Notably Andrea, Clemens and Bill. <ByronCinNZ> Thanks <jtandy> bye <ChrisLittle> bye <LarsG> Cheerio <eparsons> bye <AndreaPerego> Bye! Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions 1. [44]/www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/0 4/28-sdwbp-minutes/Previous minutes approved https:// www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/ 28-sdwbp-minutes//www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes 2. [45]To accept Clemens' pull request 870 3. [46]Accept Andrea's pull request 871 4. [47]Accept Pull Request 874 5. [48]Accept Pull request 875 6. [49]Accept PR 879 7. [50]That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Working Draft/Note 8. [51]Vote of thanks to Jeremy, Linda and the major contributors
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:38:31 UTC