- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:47:26 +0100
- To: <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Hi all,
The minutes of today's Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group call are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/01/16-sdw-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
I bring the attention of IG participants who couldn't attend the meeting to the following outcomes in particular (please speak up if you have other view!):
- Goal is to have two SDW IG meetings in 2019, one during the OGC TC meeting in Belgium in June, the other during W3C TPAC in Japan in September
- Several people on the call agreed to review the OGC Architecture Board's API guidelines
- There was agreement to move the OWL Space proposal to the OGC Geosemantic Domain Working Group, chaired by Linda and Jo.
Thanks,
Francois.
--
Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group call
16 January 2019
[2]Agenda [3]IRC log
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2019Jan/0036.html
[3] https://www.w3.org/2019/01/16-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
Bill Roberts, Chris Little, Francois Daoust, Joseph
Abhayaratna, Jeremy Tandy, Linda van den Brink, Rob
Smith
Regrets
Clemens Portele, Michael Gordon, Nicholas Car, Scott
Simmons, Simon Cox
Chair
Jeremy
Scribe
Francois
Contents
* [4]Meeting minutes
1. [5]Agree date and locations for the F2F meetings in
2019
2. [6]Coordinate review of the OGC Architecture Board's
API Guidelines
3. [7]OWL Space proposal
4. [8]Misc.
5. [9]AOB
* [10]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Agree date and locations for the F2F meetings in 2019
jtandy: Two options, one being tied to OGC meeting in Singapore
end of February, then TPAC in September. Other option is
Leuven, Belgium in June, then TPAC.
… Neither of the chairs are planning to be in Singapore.
… On that note, unless someone is really keen on Singapore, I'm
suggesting the second option.
<RobSmith_> +1
<josephabhayaratna> +1
<ChrisLit> +1 to Leuven and Fukuoka
<brinkwoman> +1
<tidoust> +1
<billroberts> +1
<jtandy> +1 also
<josephabhayaratna> I'll likely need to dial in
<billroberts> will definitely come to Leuven. Not sure about
Japan but can at least dial in to Japan. Will come if poss!
Resolved: Two SDW IG meetings in 2019: TC meeting in Belgium in
June, TPAC in Japan in September
Coordinate review of the OGC Architecture Board's API Guidelines
<RobSmith_> I plan to be in Belgium, but not Japan
jtandy: Who is aware of the OGC work here? Chris is.
brinkwoman: I am too.
jtandy: Rob, Jo, Bill, have you seen this stuff yet?
<RobSmith_> I've not seen it yet. Will take a look
josephabhayaratna: I had a look. I'm about to convene a group
to work on a Geocoding API
ChrisLit: The Met Office reviewed the guidelines, and we're
quite happy with the contents of the guidelines
jtandy: We'll have more of a look before the end of February.
… So, Jo, you're working with Michael Gordon on an API Stream
within OGC
josephabhayaratna: Struggling with geocoding. The geocoding
API, we pushed for a standards working group thanks to
reasonable support within OGC. That was December 2017 and we
haven't done much since then.
… I can certainly have a closer look at the guidelines by end
of February. Obviously, I cannot commit Michael, but I know
he's interested.
… We have built APIs in the company I work for. I had to
describe interoperability problems. I'll look at these
guidelines through those eyes.
jtandy: I want to make sure that we test these guidelines with
a concrete developer perspective.
… Just want to record that Clemens is going to be talking to
OGC Andreas about the guidelines pretty soon. The Met Office
will provide feedback by beginning of February.
brinkwoman: Also, note Andreas is part of the OAB.
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if we should put the
geocoding API in the funnel
brinkwoman: I am set to review another set of guidelines. When
I do that, I can review the OGC guidelines and compare them.
Also can look at the Dutch API guidelines
jtandy: Geocoding API, should we put it in the funnel?
brinkwoman: If there's still a reason to move it ahead, yes. It
has stalled in OGC.
jtandy: Would it help you, Jo?
josephabhayaratna: possibly. How do joint things work?
<jtandy> [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/
2019Jan/0036.html
[11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2019Jan/0036.html
<jtandy> [12]https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/15
[12] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/15
jtandy: If you look at this GitHub project, it lists proposals.
Each one of these is an issue opened in our repository. The
fact that it's OGC or W3C does not really matter.
… What we agreed with Scott is that we'd manage the funnel on
the W3C repo.
… In terms of tracking the work, it gives some visibility.
… It is a geospatial API that's meant to work on the Web, so is
in scope of the group.
<billroberts> +1
jtandy: What do people think about tracking the work?
<josephabhayaratna> +1
<brinkwoman> +1
<jtandy> +1
<RobSmith_> +1
<ChrisLit> +1
<tidoust> +1
jtandy: Jo, if you can create a new issue on the GitHub repo.
josephabhayaratna: Yes. It is in progress. Some paper written,
notably to describe the interoperability problem. Some people
wonder about that.
<ChrisLit> timing out for a while
jtandy: One reason is we want to use the API guidelines as a
score card for assessing the OGC type standards that exist
already for Linda's roadmap
RobSmith_: I'm turning WebVMT in a library, so looking at it
from an API perspective as well.
… Will work on that.
jtandy: With your engineer hat on, it would make sense to
review the guidelines in any case.
RobSmith_: Yes, I quickly glanced and guidelines seemed clear.
I think I can provide feedback by early February.
… Also investigating searching video by location, can look into
guidelines from that perspective as well.
billroberts: No comment from my side for now, guidelines look
good on the surface.
<Zakim> brinkwoman, you wanted to suggest to tackle agenda item
6 next
OWL Space proposal
brinkwoman: I was talking with Jo yesterday about that.
Sometimes, people referred to the idea as spatial ontology. Jo
joined me as co-chair of the OGC GeoSemantic Working Group.
<jtandy> (Related to the previous item - we’ll all try to
review the API Guidelines by the beginning of Feb - we’ll
coordinate the input via the SDW group discussion)
brinkwoman: We wanted to move the topic to the Geosemantic
Working Group. A Domain Working Group from an OGC perspective,
which is open to non OGC people.
jtandy: That sounds fine with me. It would also give some focus
to the Geosemantic Working Group.
josephabhayaratna: Having a working group plan to work on it
seems a good thing.
<josephabhayaratna> +1
<jtandy> +1
<billroberts> +1
<RobSmith_> +1
billroberts: Sounds like a good idea. We discussed in the best
practices some of the things missing from GeoSparql. I would
concentrate on the simple bits as far as practical.
… My general feeling about using ontologies is that most people
don't care about the fancy bits. If we can standardize the core
things, then that's good.
josephabhayaratna: Just to follow up. Driving it from work that
is already happening. Trying to keep it focused and relevant.
… Having a look at problems that people really have. We want to
bring people that are struggling with concrete problems.
<billroberts> sounds like the ideal approach to me, Jo - thanks
jtandy: Linda or Jo, if you can take an action to update the
issue and point people at the right OGC group, that would be
good
josephabhayaratna: Happy to take that action.
brinkwoman: Should we create a proper project for it?
jtandy: Yes, move it to a concrete project
Misc.
jtandy: Looking at other topics, roadmap can be done via email.
About CityGML, someone needs to take the action of preparing
the response. EO-QB, Bill, are you in touch with Kerry?
josephabhayaratna: Not for the moment, but I may.
jtandy: If you can ping the editors about the comment we
received, that would be great.
josephabhayaratna: Happy to do that.
<josephabhayaratna> I need to jump out sorry... bye everyone
and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
jtandy: Bill, regarding statistical best practices?
billroberts: [scribe missed update]
ChrisLit: Various works in OGC go back to the RDF Data Cube
(projections, filters), are you doing something there?
… Categorial dimensions and geospatial dimensions.
billroberts: I'll be in touch.
… One question, can non W3C participants get edit access to the
GitHub repo?
tidoust: Yes
billroberts: Slow progress but making connections, so
promising.
jtandy: Rob, quick update?
RobSmith_: Regarding WebVMT, there has been a document review.
Many thanks to all of those who contributed, the document is a
lot healthier and clearer as a result of that.
… The other thing that has progressing is the WICG activity in
relation with the Media & Entertainment IG, starting with a
repo. On Data cues. Making progress.
… It would make generic data cues more native to browsers. Some
issues related to timing and latency.
… The other thing to report is that I went to the OGC meeting
in Ireland. Michael Gordon was there and presented this group.
jtandy: Anything that you need from this IG in the short term?
RobSmith_: More participation, obviously, but I'm not really
expecting that. Made contact with people I met in OGC meetings.
… Nothing from SDW IG for the moment.
jtandy: Thanks, with that we're just a couple of minutes over.
Agenda items 1 and 2, we'll follow up via emails.
AOB
tidoust: Just noting the couple of errata on Time Ontology and
SSN. To be discussed. Can be done on GitHub.
ChrisLit: Yes, about Time, I was waiting for Simon to come back
from holiday. No divergence between OGC and W3C versions.
jtandy: OK, wish you all a very productive 2019, bye!
Summary of resolutions
1. [13]Two SDW IG meetings in 2019: TC meeting in Belgium in
June, TPAC in Japan in September
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:47:33 UTC