Please note These minutes are very basic due to a problem with RRSAgent. The complete IRC log was retained.
<scribe> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150225 (20:38:36)
eparsons: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-sdw-minutes.html
... +1
billroberts: +1
SimonCox: +1
LarsG: +1
chaals: +1
ClemensPortele: +1
Linda: +1
Ian_Holt: +1
aharth: +1
MattPerry: +1
Alejandro_Llaves: +1
ThiagoA: +1
cperey: _+1
... +1
JoshLieberman: +1
ahaller2: +1
phila: RESOLVED: Acceptlast week's minutes
eparsons: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
aharth: meeting minutes approved
... ogc patent call
phila: scribeNick: aharth
aharth: intro new members
aharth: kostis, phd on sparql for spatial and temporal data, including implementation in strabon
ioannis_ [~ioannis@public.cloak] entered the room. (21:07:49)
aharth: will publish few 100 gb's of dutch geodata
phila: -> http://www.strabon.di.uoa.gr/ Info on Strabon
... *zakim, who is here?*
aharth: yolanda gil, at isi of university of southern calif, ai research, scientific initiatives, us earthcube project, research on workflows, provenance, ogc testbed 10 provenance work
aharth: next item: planning f2f barcelona in a few weeks
phila: Topic: F2F planning
aharth: f2f: use cases document work
... f2f: presentations to give people context
Linda: http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/F2f_Barcelona
aharth: technologies to be presented: geosparql, matt perry remotely
kerry: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/F2f_Barcelona has ongoing record of these talks
aharth: matt is eastern time in the us, later in the day in spain would be good
phila: MattPerry: I can talk about GeoSPARQL but remotely. I'm in US EST
phila: aharth: I can give a pres on NeoGeo, I'll be there
aharth: neogeo: andreas harth, will be attending f2f
AndreaPerego: *: difficult to understand who's speaking - using q+ helps*
Zakim: *sees kerry at the head of the speaker queue*
aharth: geojson: (?)
aharth: kerry: nobody from geojson is in the group, maybe simon?
... simon: i'm in PST time zone, can do a few slides, but would need to be later in the day
... simon: i can do geojson, not sure about geojson-ld
... josh: i can help with geojson-ld
aharth: ed: idea is to give an overview of the technologies, so that everybody is on the same page
JoshLieberman: testbed 11 is presently investigating json-ld to represent spatial and other data, so some interest and knowledge
... +1 to Kostis
aharth: kostis: haven't put my name in the wiki, could give a short overview of st-rdf and st-sparql
... ed: sounds good
ThiagoA: Good idea Ed. It will be an introduction of the meeting. Does it ?
aharth: kostis: st-sparql is close to geosparql, but temporal bit might be interesting
... ed: could you coordinate with matt who's doing geosparql?
... kostis: will do
JoshLieberman: Differences and similarities GeoSPARQL and stSPARQL would be great to cover.
phila: *aharth pls use TAB to auto complete names so they match their IRC names, e.g. eparsons: not ed
aharth: *thanks*
... *is on ircii*
billroberts: Apologies I won't be able to make the F2F either in person or by phone, as I'm involved in a different workshop at the same time
aharth: kerry: there's quite some enthusiasm to create a glossary
SimonCox: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms
aharth: Topic: Glossary page on the wiki
ThiagoA: I think that can be explained in the introduction the challenges to interoperability with the existence of many formats of geodata
aharth: kerry: i've added some thoughts on the wiki page
KJanowicz: IMHO, this is a lot of work and not always useful
SimonCox: Note that http://www.isotc211.org/TC211_Multi-Lingual_Glossary-2015-02-13_Published.xls includes O(1000) terms
aharth: kerry: we should be careful so that effort is not out of proportion
LarsG: *@SimonCox: will you be at RDA in San Diego?*
SimonCox: @LarsG Yes
aharth: cperry: glossary could be cleaned up by a subset of people
Zakim: *sees phila on the speaker queue*
LarsG: *@SimonCox: Great, we can get in touch there*
aharth: eparsons: is useful for reference, but not a deliverable of the group
Zakim: *sees phila, JoshLieberman on the speaker queue*
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees phila at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees JoshLieberman on the speaker queue*
aharth: cperry: definition of feature would help as feature is such an important concpet
LarsG: s/concpet/concept/
ClemensPortele: s/cperry/cperey/
aharth: phila: glossary is not on the charter, but the amount of work involved in taking a wiki page to a working group note is relatively minor
Ian_Holt: @SimonCox I can also help on the JSON presentation if you like. I'm planning on being at the F2F
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees JoshLieberman at the head of the speaker queue*
aharth: josh: right now, we cannot use the terms a priori to achieve the common understanding we'll need
KJanowicz: We can easily spend this week's entire telco without agreeing what a 'feature' is. I see your point but IMHO trying to arrive at crsip definitions early on is really difficult
kerry: +1 to josh
aharth: s/josh:/JoshLieberman:/
AndreaPerego: +1 to josh
KarlG_: +1 josh
KJanowicz: +1 josh
aharth: eparsons: any other points?
eparsons: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Scope_questions_and_Requirements
aharth: Topic: Scope Questions and Requirements
eparsons: Is the use case specifically about Spatial data on the Web?
aharth: eparsons: will use the f2f to work on the use cases and requirements, but should do some more work before
billroberts: +1 to Ed's point that spatial data does not need coordinates
aharth: eparsons: spatial data for us includes data that does not have a fixed geo representation
Linda: +1
aharth: eparsons: is that resolved?
AndreaPerego: +1
chaals: +1
ClemensPortele: +1
Ian_Holt: +1
KarlG_: +1
Zakim: *sees Alejandro_Llaves on the speaker queue*
kerry: +1
MattPerry: +1
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees Alejandro_Llaves at the head of the speaker queue*
Kostis_Kyzirakos: +1
aharth: Alejandro_Llaves: what would be the minimum requirement for the use case on the wiki?
ThiagoA: +1
aharth: Alejandro_Llaves: use cases should meet the minimum requirement before the f2f
... eparsons: we haven't defined specific requirements as such
... eparsons: right now, they should be true user problems
... eparsons: there are descriptions of varied detail in the use cases right now
... eparsons: should collect as much as possible right now
... Alejandro_Llaves: there's cleanup needed though
... eparsons: we can solicit more detail if we go through them
eparsons: Does the requirement encourage publication or re-use of data on the Web; (suggestion to be developed)
aharth: eparsons: second question re scoping questions: is the use case including data published and accessible on the web
kerry: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Scope_questions_and_Requirements
aharth: eparsons: as opposed to a more abstract idea/research problem without data you have or are able to publish
billroberts: that seems an important requirement. Agree with your interpretation.
aharth: josh: why on the web vs. a limited audience
aharth: josh: a lot of spatial data may be exchanged in small communities
... josh: publication would mean prepare to be suitable for a large audience
... eparsons: yes, i think we should have scenarios where people explicitely chose to exchange content
JohnM: +q
Zakim: *sees JohnM on the speaker queue*
aharth: eparsons: ok, will use that as scoping filter
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees JohnM at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
ioannis_: +q
Zakim: *sees ioannis_ on the speaker queue*
ioannis_: -1
aharth: JohnM: my organisations is interested in describing geodata, but because of ip restrictions we might not be able to put it on the public web
phila: I certainly don't think closed data is out of scope
ahaller2: +1
KJanowicz: Sharing using web technology is okay
AndreaPerego: +1 to "sharing using Web technology"
ClemensPortele: +1 to phila
aharth: eparsons: sharing via web tech is ok, or does it have to be on the public web?
Alejandro_Llaves left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 180 seconds). (21:32:13)
chaals: +1 to phila
billroberts: Agree closed data in scope, but should use mechanisms of the web (HTTP etc) to distribute
JohnM: +1
Linda: +1
LarsG: +1 to using web technology (even if it's private)
AndreaPerego: +1
Ian_Holt: +1 to phila
MattPerry: +1
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees ioannis_ at the head of the speaker queue*
SimonCox: +1 LarsG
Zakim: *unmutes ioannis_*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
kerry: +q
Zakim: *sees kerry on the speaker queue*
JoshLieberman: +1 if closure is do to IP considerations rather than limited usability
... ^do^due
aharth: ioannis_: re publication, does this also include catalogues, repositories, discovery?
LarsG: +1 JoshLieberman
eparsons: ack kerry
aharth: eparsons: my reading is it's publication in the broadest sense
aharth: kerry: i would like someone to write up the meaning of publication and web tech on the wiki
... eparsons: we're taking as broad a view on publication as possible
phila: q+ to talk about Data on the Web Best Practices
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees phila at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: phila, you wanted to talk about Data on the Web Best Practices
aharth: eparsons: scoping questions could be discussed on the list similar to the first scoping question
phila: http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/
aharth: phila: bring the group's attention to the dwbp working draft
... phila: we shouldn't have to repeat what the dwbp is doing
... phila: but it won't say anything specific about spatial data though
... phila: our best practices could extend the basics described in dwbp
JoshLieberman: A particular aspect of spatial data sensitivity to cover is resolution.
eparsons: Is the requirement testable? - can it be tested by machines, humans or a combination of the two. (suggestion to be developed)
aharth: eparsons: testability of requirements
phila: I think testability is important
billroberts: +q
AndreaPerego: +1
phila: Or how do you know thatyou have followed the advice?
KarlG_: +1 clear, +1 important
Zakim: *sees billroberts at the head of the speaker queue*
Ian_Holt: +1 phila
AndreaPerego: s/thatyou/that you/
aharth: billroberts: for many of us with software engineering background know it's a long way from requirements to testing, do we have unit tests?
aharth: billroberts: any intermediate steps possible?
JohnM: +1 billroberts
ClemensPortele: +q
Zakim: *sees ClemensPortele on the speaker queue*
aharth: eparsons: make sure we have a common understanding of the requirements
ioannis_: I think the meaning is that we can verify its proper operation
AndreaPerego: ack next
Zakim: *sees ClemensPortele at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
aharth: ClemensPortele: use case != requirement
DanhLePhuoc [~DanhLePhuoc@public.cloak] entered the room. (21:40:13)
JoshLieberman: Requirements at this (conceptual) level can only be "tested" by abstract tests
aharth: ClemensPortele: has a use case a description that can lead to a testable requirement?
Linda: +1 to clemens
ioannis_: +1 to clemens, testable means verifyable
Kostis_Kyzirakos: +1 to clemens
aharth: kerry: got it, will put that on the wiki
... kerry: machines or people should be able to test, would like to keep that (or combination of the two)
... kerry: should we keep that?
JoshLieberman: -1 to "by machines..."
Alejandro_Llaves_: +q
Zakim: *sees Alejandro_Llaves_ on the speaker queue*
chaals: q+
Zakim: *sees Alejandro_Llaves_, chaals on the speaker queue*
aharth: eparsons: perhaps if we could jot some wording down in the coming week
eparsons: ack nect
Zakim: *sees Alejandro_Llaves_, chaals on the speaker queue*
billroberts: yeah -1 to "by machines", at least at this early stage of reqts exploration
AndreaPerego: +1 to ed
phila: ack Alejandro_Llaves_
Zakim: *sees chaals on the speaker queue*
aharth: Alejandro_Llaves_: are we meaning evaluation of requirement?
... eparsons: yes, and keep the mapping between use case and requirement
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees chaals at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
aharth: chaals: testing a requirement based on the deliverables we produce
... chaals: once we produce a spec, with conformance requirements, testability is a different thing
... chaals: testability of requirements could be incremental
Alejandro_Llaves_: +1 to chaals
aharth: eparsons: is there a better wording for that?
kerry: +q
Zakim: *sees kerry on the speaker queue*
aharth: chaals: can we understand why the requirements are not met?
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees kerry at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
aharth: kerry: we don't want use cases that list wishy-washy requriements
chaals: s/can we understand/Do we meet our requirements or can we understand/
AndreaPerego: s/requriements/requirements/
SimonCox: OGC has a formal policy that it ain't a 'requirement' unless it can be tested - https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/34762
aharth: kerry: maybe the fuzzy requirements will disappear
... chaals: can we derive "actionable" requirements?
JohnM: i think I like verifiable over actionable, but that is approaching pure terminology...
kerry: I prefer "testable" I(I hate actionable, I am afraid)
phila: zakim, who is noisy?
aharth: eparsons: we need to get the requirements clear
JohnM: +1 kerry
Zakim: phila, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: eparsons (58%), kerry (9%), ioannis_ (42%)
chaals: *I* hate "actionable" too…
aharth: eparsons: first test, then make actionable?
phila: zakim, mute ioannis_
Zakim: ioannis_ should now be muted
KarlG_: +1 kerry -- a simple filter at this stage
MattPerry: +1 to "testable"
chaals: *suggests we take it offline*
Kostis_Kyzirakos: +1 kerry
aharth: eparsons: any better language suggestions?
ioannis_: what about verifyable?
JoshLieberman: "testable" - conformance to the requirement can be logically demonstrated.
aharth: eparsons: let's get agreement offline
eparsons: public vs private web (suggestion to be developed)
aharth: eparsons: the final scoping question: do we talk about the public or the private web
LarsG: +1
aharth: eparsons: can we agree on we mean both?
chaals: +1
JohnM: +1 ioannis_ verifiable!
Linda: +1
billroberts: +1
AndreaPerego: +1
MattPerry: +1 to both
KarlG_: +1
Ian_Holt: +1
Alejandro_Llaves_: +1
kerry: +1
JohnM: +1
aharth: eparsons: fantastic!
... eparsons: need polishing around the words in #2 and #3
LarsG: After all, private data can be made public later...
JohnM: +1 LarsG
aharth: eparsons: homework: look at scoping questions and come up with requirements
... eparsons: will do that collectively in the f2f
AndreaPerego: +1
Ian_Holt: +1 to homework
aharth: eparsons: we need a bit of preparation before the f2f
Zakim: -Christine_Perey
cperey left the room (quit: "Page closed"). (21:50:28)
YGil: +q
Zakim: *sees YGil on the speaker queue*
aharth: eparsons: we've covered most of the agenda
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees YGil at the head of the speaker queue*
Zakim: *sees no one on the speaker queue*
phila: zakim, who is noisy?
Zakim: phila, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: eparsons (19%), kerry (42%)
aharth: YGil: suggestion about the use cases: there many with overlapping requirements
phila: zakim, mute kerry
Zakim: kerry should now be muted
aharth: YGil: possible to group them into a handful of more comprehensive ones
YGil: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Report
KJanowicz: +1
aharth: YGil: synthesised uses cases in PROV took pieces from the each
JohnM: +1 to grouping like cases
aharth: eparsons: yes, that will be useful and was the intention behind the homework
YGil: We synthesized 3 scenarios: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements#Motivating_Scenarios:_The_Need_for_Provenance
aharth: eparsons: feel free to share groupings and discuss via the list, should be done upfront
SimonCox: There is only one more telecon before f2f ...
aharth: YGil: start listing and grouping requirements
ioannis_: +1 YGil
aharth: YGil: use dimensions to group the requirements
SimonCox: @eparsons: There is only one more telecon before f2f ...
KarlG_: +1
kerry: +1
Kostis_Kyzirakos: +1
billroberts: +1
aharth: eparsons: could you take us through the process next week in the telo?
JoshLieberman: +1
Alejandro_Llaves_: +1
Ian_Holt: +1
LarsG: s/telo/telco/
aharth: YGil: absolutely!
LarsG: +1
aharth: eparsons: will put YGil on the agenda for next week
kerry: +q
Zakim: *sees kerry on the speaker queue*
aharth: eparsons: any other suggestions for agenda, email kerry or eparsons before the working week ideally
eparsons: ack next
Zakim: *sees kerry at the head of the speaker queue*
aharth: kerry: if you are not able to come to the f2f, put regrets into the wiki
... http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_Barcelona_F2F
phila: zakim, list participants
Zakim: As of this point the attendees have been Phila, billroberts, +61.4.331.2.aaaa, ahaller2, LarsG, +61.4.245.3.aabb, Ian_Holt, eparsons, ClemensPortele, kerry, JohnM, chaals, [ISI],
aharth: eparsons: aob?
aharth: eparsons: no, thanks, do your homework, good-bye!