Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 15 April 2015

<eparsons> phila - zakim is not working ??

There seems to be a problem. Zakim does not acknowledge newcomers

<eparsons> have I missed a step ?

<John_Machin> !

<eparsons> scribe: Frans

genda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150415#Main_aagenda

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-sdw-minutes.html

Ed: no new people on the call

<eparsons> +1

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<IanHolt> +1

<Linda> +1

<phila-restaurant> eparsons - I'm trying to get zakim to behave

<JoshLieberman> +1

Ed: are the minutes from last meeting OK?

<John_Machin> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<eparsons> thanks phil

<MattPerry> +1

<ChrisLit> +1minutes

Ed: Main topic is the Best Practices deliverable

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context

Link to the deliverable: http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#bp

Ed: Any opinions?

??: OGC has a format for best practices

<JoshLieberman> Is there a W3C example of a best practice that we can review?

<eparsons> joshlieberman > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context

AndreaPerego: Should we look at other examples of best practices?

<JoshLieberman> Here is the Data on the Web repository: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_table

AndreaPerego: Take different perspectives into account

Ed: cross reference other documents where possible

<John_Machin> +1 makes a lot of sense to look like other best practice documents that relate with our work, but should be internally complete

<John_Machin> +q

<AndreaPerego> +1 to being practical

Ed: Deliverable should be practicle

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1 agree with Ed

<IanHolt> +1 to Ed and John on practical deliverables

Frans: will we develop ontologies?

Ed: that would be a challenge

ChrisLit: there are standards and guides
... The BP deliverable should be a guide

Ed: agree, BP deliverable should not be too abstract

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q on ideas for the BP document

IanHolt: Agrees on practicality
... Worries about the dating side of things

<phila-restaurant> I'm only on IRC so thiz will be out of turn but IF the WG wants/needs tto creat ontologies, it can

Ed: We need to look at how revisions will work

JoshLieberman: difference between W3C and OGC is that W3C BPs are more granular
... Pick the granularity that is most useful

<Zakim> Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on ideas for the BP document

Alejandro_Llaves: Would like to apply Linked Data principles to elements of BP

Ed: Yes, we want to make spatial data linkable

<John_Machin> +1 to Alejandro_Llaves suggested model

ChrisLit: In response to Ian: recommends to identify changes

AndreaPerego: How technical do we want the BP to be?

<Alejandro_Llaves> Actually, what I suggested is to have something similar to the Linked Data principles document for the common activities we find in the BP use cases, e.g. publishing spatial data, discovery spatial data, etc. But not directly apply the LD principles...

Thanks, my audio is not optimal

<Alejandro_Llaves> no prob!

Ed: relates to practicality

AndreaPerego: The more technical the BP are, the easier the BP get outdated.

<JoshLieberman> It is generally the nature of best practices to evolve more rapidly than other types of specification...

Frans: We could try to cater for multiple levels of technicality, to accomodate different types of readers

<John_Machin> +1 Frans

<John_Machin> +q

<John_Machin> -q

Linda: Wonders if the deliverable will be frozen or if it will live on

<AndreaPerego> +1 to Ian about the idea of having "implementations" of high level BPs

Ed to look into document freezing

<John_Machin> +1 need to discuss the question Linda raised

<scribe> ACTION: Ed to look into document freezing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/15-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Look into document freezing [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-04-22].

??: let's avoid versioning troubles

Linda: we could have a comply-or-explain list

Ed: hopefully we can refer to other resources for technical details

<Alejandro_Llaves> Ed, yes that would be ideal

Linda: Ian mentioned having implementations. Will those be reference implementations?

<AndreaPerego> Probably, we should call them "implementation guidelines"

Linda: Examples are good.
... Reference implementations will be desirable

<eparsons> frans: start as soon as possible with a deliverable in mind

<JoshLieberman> Should we adopt the repository - template structure from https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Best_practices_table ?

Ed: let us take a few more weeks to finish UCR

<AndreaPerego> +1

Ed: let us describe the desired structure on a wiki page
... a bullet list of what should be in the BP document

<AndreaPerego> +1 to Ed's proposal to start discussion on design principles

Ed: let us describe design principles for the BP document

<John_Machin> +1 to starting with principles, but end in practices

ChrisLit: At some time we need to look at existing OGC material

Ed: Yes, that will be one of the principles: reference what is already there
... we need to arrive at a common level of understanding
... and we need editors too
... remember: next call will be at a different time

<IanHolt> Thanks. Bye.

<Alejandro_Llaves> bye, thanks!

<John_Machin> thanks bye!

<AndreaPerego> Bye