Re: [sdw] Communicate good practice for defining geofences in the Best Practices doc (#1268)

Here's the summary from the SDW-IG plenary call, 22 Jul 2021 ([minutes](https://www.w3.org/2021/07/22-sdw-minutes.html)):

> brinkwoman: I'm not the owner of this, just wrote it down! But to summarise: different communities have a need for geofences and for standardisation in describing them
> … We think we do have standards that could be used - generally just a polygon. But we lack a way to express the rules of what can happen inside or outside the geofence
> … It would be useful to add to the best practices document. Scott and Clara have taken the action to write something
> 
> jtandy: There's a new piece of work - writing up for the best practices but also to develop a way of expressing the rules
> 
> Peter Parslow: The geofence is more than just a description of the geometry. It also has the aspect of expected difference in behaviour inside or outside the fence
> 
> PeterR: I raised an issue that the web itself (HTML, javascript etc) has no need for a description of features. (A geofence would be a kind of a feature). But browsers would need to understand feature semantics to process geofences on the client side
> … there is a privacy danger to server side geolocation processing, which helps motivate understanding geolocation on the client side
> 
> ScottSimmons: This would be very interesting as a Best Practice. We can talk about the geometry, but it's the semantics of the geofence that makes it interesting. A great example of why we should have spatial data on the web. I volunteer to take a first stab at writing this up. OGC has had a go at a descriptor for one kind of geofence which could be more broadly applicable
> 
> jtandy: to confirm - getting a geofence into the BPs would be useful and there is OGC work that could act as a start
> 
> roba: current best practice is pretty much at the level of 'hasGeometry' but that doesn't tell you much about what it means. Relates to the HTTP-14 kind of issue
> … there probably isn't a best practice yet, but having feature types that suit the end use and the ability to publish the feature types to describe the semantics of geometry properties would be part of any solution
> 
> jtandy: so in the OGC SWIG structure there is already work going on. Can SDWWG help? Coordination role?
> 
> Scottsimmons: certainly an early review would be good. And to get input from the experts in this group on how this could work in the SDW paradigm
> 
> PeterR: Accessibility for people with disabilities could be related to geofence semantics. Could provide extra information for people with particular needs.
> 
> jtandy: Scott, please add links to the work that has already been taking place as a comment on the GH issue

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by 6a6d74
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1268#issuecomment-885027773 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 22 July 2021 15:59:27 UTC