RE: [Minutes] SDWIG call - 2019-01-16

Following up on the OWL-Space proposal: 

1. I see you are picking up on 'OWL-Time' as your branding inspiration

2. If I was doing OWL-Time again I would de-emphasize the sub-classes of TemporalPosition - perhaps factor them out into a separate namespace or spec. GeoSPARQL definitely got that right by delegating position and coordinates out to WKT and GML - I'd suggest adding a JSON recommendation. 

3. TemporalDuration is less of a mess. Analogous spatial extents, like 'length', 'area', 'volume' should be no-brainers for OWL-Space. 

4. The main value in OWL-Time is the Allen interval relations. But the implementation is all in words. We should have done a bit of work on formalizing the rules or, at least some SPARQL Construct work. It's probably tractable in 1-D. But maybe not for 2/3/4-D. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January, 2019 21:47
To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: [Minutes] SDWIG call - 2019-01-16

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 Thursday, 17 January 2019 07:07:08 UTC