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

[Minutes] 2017-05-10

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>
Message-ID: <23814b69-147a-44f0-187b-0523479619fe@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


           AndreaPerego, billroberts, ByronCinNZ, ChrisLittle,
           eparsons, Francois, jtandy, LarsG, MattPerry, phila

           Bart, Linda, Payam, Scott, Simon




      * [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

    bp-minutes/Previous minutes approved [18]https://www.w3.org/


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/


    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?


    <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

Remaining Issues

    <jtandy> [22]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/

      [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
    … 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

    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

    <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/


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

    <jtandy> [28]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/


    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/

      [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/

      [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/


    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

    jtandy: If you look at the URL I pasted, you can see the raw

    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

    <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

    AndreaPerego: Yes.

    AndreaPerego: It's a thing that can be out on top of any CSW


    jtandy: We should perhaps add a note that it's only about data

    ClemensPortele: It seems clear with the example that we have
    … 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
    … 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

    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
    … 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


    <LarsG> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <ByronCinNZ> +1

    <AndreaPerego> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    Resolved: Accept PR 879

    jtandy: Merging now

    <jtandy> [38]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/

      [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

    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/


    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?


    <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 ::

    <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

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

    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/


    <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.


    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://
     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
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:38:31 UTC