12:52:36 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 12:52:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-irc 12:52:38 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:52:38 Zakim has joined #sdw 12:52:40 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:52:40 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 12:52:41 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:52:41 Date: 13 May 2015 12:53:00 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:53:26 present+ eparsons 12:53:37 chair: eparsons 12:55:30 Frans has joined #sdw 12:58:02 kerry has joined #sdw 12:58:19 PhilippeThiran has joined #sdw 12:58:27 LarsG has joined #sdw 12:58:34 present+LarsG 12:58:47 present+PhilippeThiran 13:00:02 aharth has joined #sdw 13:00:46 jtandy has joined #sdw 13:01:45 Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw 13:02:43 http://www.w3.org/2015/03/inspire/ 13:02:47 got it now, thanks 13:03:46 Linda has joined #sdw 13:03:51 JoshLieberman has joined #sdw 13:04:17 I just joined the webex 13:05:11 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 13:05:23 scribe: jtandy 13:05:33 scribe: Jeremy Tandy 13:05:42 For those who are in mourning for zakim... http://www.w3.org/2015/05/zakim.mp3 13:05:45 scribenick: jtandy 13:05:47 present+ Alejandro_Llaves 13:05:50 present+ Phila 13:05:51 present+ jtandy 13:05:51 present+ kerry 13:05:53 present+ billroberts 13:05:54 present+ aharth 13:05:58 +Frans 13:06:02 present+ Linda 13:06:09 present+ ChrisLittle 13:06:24 present +Frans 13:06:42 present+ JoshLieberman 13:06:43 present+ Frans 13:06:52 http://www.w3.org/2015/05/06-sdw-minutes 13:06:58 regrets+ Rachel, Antoine 13:07:08 eparsons: requests approval of last weeks minutes ... 13:07:13 +1 13:07:14 (I was absent) 13:07:15 +1 13:07:18 +1 13:07:19 +1 13:07:20 +1 13:07:23 PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes, kerry 13:07:38 RESOLVED: accept last weeks minutes 13:07:54 eparsons: asks if there's anyone new on the call 13:08:00 Regrets+ chaals 13:08:01 [no response] 13:08:21 eparsons: does the weekly OGC patents call ... 13:08:27 regrets+ Clemens Portele, Cory Henson, Stefan Lemme, Simon Cox 13:08:29 present+ AndreaPerego 13:08:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:08:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:08:46 eparsons: main effort this week is looking at the completion of the use cases for the second group 13:08:53 ... SSN, Time, Coverage 13:09:22 kerry: we're going to work through the use cases using the requirements doc in it's current state 13:09:27 Latest version updated today: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html 13:09:36 kerry: starting with #31 13:10:03 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SelectHierarchicalGeographicalRegionsForUseInDataAnalysisOrVisualisation 13:10:21 -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SelectHierarchicalGeographicalRegionsForUseInDataAnalysisOrVisualisation UC 31 13:11:06 Frans: [agrees with kerry] we will put issues into the tracker based on today's discussion 13:11:16 Frans: why do we start with #31? 13:11:49 +q on completing use cases 13:11:53 kerry: we've not covered these as a group - I think Alejandro_Llaves has done it independently 13:11:57 ack next 13:11:58 Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on completing use cases 13:12:06 [it = put the requirements into the spreadsheet!] 13:12:35 Alejandro_Llaves: yes - this was me. we called for contribution from the people who put the use cases in 13:12:39 -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PSnpJYQDgsdgZgPJEfUU0EhVfgFFYGc1WL4xUX9Dunk/edit#gid=0 The spreadsheet 13:12:50 ... and for those that did not response I made a best guess 13:12:52 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 13:13:10 I should note that numbering of use cases is different in spreadsheet and UCR document. The IDs should be stable. 13:13:14 kerry: we have discussed things at 2 other meetings since the F2F 13:13:49 q+ 13:13:56 Alejandro_Llaves: I would say that going through the use cases one by one as a group will be very time consuming 13:14:05 ack next 13:14:07 ... that's why we asked for contribution 13:14:20 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing 13:14:31 phila: looking through the UC doc, there are some that don't have any requirements (see example) 13:15:09 ... are there some use cases that don't have requirements or is it that this is still a work in progress 13:15:32 +q on completeness of UCR document in SSN and Time 13:15:55 Frans: [work in progress] it makes sense to get a reasonably good list of requirements _before_ we try to put in the links to use cases 13:16:05 q+ 13:16:08 ack next 13:16:09 Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on completeness of UCR document in SSN and Time 13:16:12 phila: do we need all 47 use caes? 13:16:29 ... if there are some that don't really relate to requirements? 13:16:57 q+ 13:17:18 Alejandro_Llaves: I finished today to complete the use cases for the time ontology deliverable 13:17:29 ... coverage has not been done yet 13:17:44 ack next 13:17:45 ... there are still some [use cases] where things are not really clear yet 13:18:25 billrobe_: there is a chance that some requirements are not captured - nor the links between reqs and UC 13:18:32 ack next 13:18:34 +q 13:18:45 ... happy to do this [offline] - what's the easiest way to provide this input? 13:19:02 Frans: it's up to me to provide the connections between UC and reqs - 13:19:15 ... but noticed that the reqs weren't stable yet 13:19:37 ... some UC are isolated because I haven't got around to them yet 13:19:51 ... all 47 UC are probably relevant 13:20:11 +1 to all 47 13:20:16 so just email questions/comments/suggestions to the list? or do a Github pull request? 13:20:17 ... responding to @billrobe_ the key thing is to check that the requirement is clear 13:20:17 ack next 13:20:20 q+ 13:20:39 Alejandro_Llaves: adds that the best way to contribute is by editing the spreadsheet 13:20:56 ... then we can add the content of the comment into the [doc] 13:21:02 ack next 13:21:14 ok thanks Alejandro 13:21:18 jtandy: When we're looking at the reqs, do we want to check that they are testable? 13:21:28 ... if it is not clear then we will raise an issue of the tracker 13:21:48 q+ testable requirements 13:21:58 Frans: being testable is not an explicit "requirement for requirement" 13:22:01 q? 13:22:08 q- testable 13:22:14 q- requirements 13:22:33 q+ kerry to talk on testable requrements 13:22:57 ack next 13:22:58 kerry, you wanted to talk on testable requrements 13:23:05 jtandy: we should be thinking about _if_ we can build a test for the requirement 13:23:12 ... else if might be a principle 13:23:34 Frans: I've added the testability into the glossary 13:23:56 kerry: we have both functional and non-functional requirements - the latter don't have to be testable 13:24:07 ... so not all reqs need to be tested 13:24:25 eparsons: let's get back to the agenda? 13:24:49 kerry: do we need to go through the use cases in plenary? 13:25:06 ... perhaps just to look at only those use cases that don't have reqs yet 13:25:30 kerry: @billrobe_ - do you want to review UC 31 here & now or do that offline 13:25:41 billrobe_: prefer to do this offline & report back 13:25:49 q+ to suggest action items? 13:26:00 kerry: we're apply @billrobe_'s response to everyone 13:26:10 kerry: this applies to EVERYONE 13:26:11 ack next 13:26:12 phila, you wanted to suggest action items? 13:26:34 Is 31 the spreadhsheet number or or the UCR number? 13:26:41 action: Bill Roberts to check that the requirements have been captured from http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SelectHierarchicalGeographicalRegionsForUseInDataAnalysisOrVisualisation 13:26:42 Created ACTION-27 - Roberts to check that the requirements have been captured from http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#selecthierarchicalgeographicalregionsforuseindataanalysisorvisualisation [on Bill Roberts - due 2015-05-20]. 13:26:43 kerry: if you've proposed a use case then you are now [required] to do the review of the requirements 13:27:02 billroberts has joined #sdw 13:27:08 q+ 13:27:09 billrobe_: it's time now to go back through the use cases and requirements and build the x-refs 13:27:09 s/spreadhsheet/spreadsheet/ 13:27:18 ack next 13:27:34 kerry: there's more meat on the bones of the requirements - so they'll be easier to work with 13:27:52 kerry: the spreadsheet is most up to date for coverage requirements 13:28:09 kerry: primarily we're looking at defining _new_ requirements 13:28:21 phila: I've created an action for billroberts 13:28:35 ... do you want me to do the same for all the others? 13:28:50 kerry: what about those people not in the group? 13:28:50 UC 31 - might want to consider that what's being described is largely a discrete coverage, so the coverage deliverable might be involved. 13:29:17 phila: action item on me to write to Erwin - I think he's the only one 13:29:28 [phila makes a joke] 13:29:32 [tumbleweed] 13:30:25 action: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SatelliteDataProcessing in terms of requirements 13:30:27 Created ACTION-28 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#satellitedataprocessing in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20]. 13:30:59 JoshLieberman: UC ?? describes a discrete coverage - features that cover that geographical domain. 13:31:07 action: simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsEMII in terms of requirements 13:31:07 Created ACTION-29 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsemii in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20]. 13:31:29 ... therefore discrete coverages become a key requirement for UC 31 13:31:31 action: Simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsDataProviders in terms of requirements 13:31:31 Created ACTION-30 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsdataproviders in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20]. 13:31:37 +q on sub-requirements 13:31:43 ack next 13:31:44 Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on sub-requirements 13:31:52 action: Simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsDataConsumers in terms of requirements 13:31:52 Created ACTION-31 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsdataconsumers in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20]. 13:31:54 eparsons: so let's close that out at the moment and follow up next week to make sure everyone has done their actions! 13:32:04 Alejandro_Llaves: how do we deal with sub requirments? 13:32:21 action: Linda to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#BuildingInformationManagementAndDataSharing, which came from Henk Schaap - Gobar, in terms of requirements 13:32:22 Created ACTION-32 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#buildinginformationmanagementanddatasharing, which came from henk schaap - gobar, in terms of requirements [on Linda van den Brink - due 2015-05-20]. 13:32:34 s/requirments/requirements/ 13:32:41 ... for example, coverage reqs spreadsheet indicates [an example of] a sub requirement 13:32:54 action: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LandsatDataServices, which came from Aaron Sedgmen of Geoscience Australia, in terms of requirements 13:32:54 Created ACTION-33 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#landsatdataservices, which came from aaron sedgmen of geoscience australia, in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20]. 13:33:01 ... should we treat as a sub requirement or individual requirements? 13:33:18 eparsons: what was the rationale for making a sub requirement? 13:33:29 action: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MetadataAndSearchGranularity, which came from Aaron Sedgmen of Geoscience Australia, in terms of requirements 13:33:29 Created ACTION-34 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#metadataandsearchgranularity, which came from aaron sedgmen of geoscience australia, in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20]. 13:33:32 q+ kerry to speak on subrequirements 13:33:32 q+ 13:33:38 ack next 13:33:38 Alejandro_Llaves: the content of the requirement comes from both coverage and time deliverables 13:33:39 kerry, you wanted to speak on subrequirements 13:33:59 action: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CrowdSourcedEarthquakeObservationInformation, which came from Aaron Sedgmen of Geoscience Australia, in terms of requirements 13:33:59 Created ACTION-35 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#crowdsourcedearthquakeobservationinformation, which came from aaron sedgmen of geoscience australia, in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20]. 13:34:12 ack next 13:34:18 action: erich to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TCGAMicroscopyImaging in terms of requirements 13:34:18 Created ACTION-36 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#tcgamicroscopyimaging in terms of requirements [on Erich Bremer - due 2015-05-20]. 13:34:24 action: AndreaPerego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeospatialExtensionsToDomainIndependentMetadataSchemas in terms of requirements 13:34:25 kerry: suggests that you wrap it into one requirement - but make it explicit that this covers spatial and time 13:34:25 Created ACTION-37 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#geospatialextensionstodomainindependentmetadataschemas in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20]. 13:34:50 action: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CropYieldEstimationUsingMultipleSatellites, which came from Zheng-Shu Zhou, in terms of requirements 13:34:50 Created ACTION-38 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#cropyieldestimationusingmultiplesatellites, which came from zheng-shu zhou, in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20]. 13:34:54 kerry: have one requirement- the more general one 13:35:06 action: AndreaPerego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ImprovingDiscoveryOfSpatialDataOnTheWeb in terms of requirements 13:35:07 Created ACTION-39 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#improvingdiscoveryofspatialdataontheweb in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20]. 13:35:11 action: perego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeospatialExtensionsToDomainIndependentMetadataSchemas in terms of requirements 13:35:11 Created ACTION-40 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#geospatialextensionstodomainindependentmetadataschemas in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20]. 13:35:16 ... but include the specific sub cases as part of the description of the general requirement 13:35:30 action: perego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ImprovingDiscoveryOfSpatialDataOnTheWeb in terms of requirements 13:35:30 Created ACTION-41 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#improvingdiscoveryofspatialdataontheweb in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20]. 13:35:37 Alejandro_Llaves: [... indicates that this could be complex] 13:36:01 kerry: I think this is OK - it's ok for a requirement to refer back to multiple delierables 13:36:01 action: Archer to contact Erwin Folmer and ask him to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#INSPIREComplianceUsingWebStandards in terms of requirements 13:36:01 Created ACTION-42 - Contact erwin folmer and ask him to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#inspirecomplianceusingwebstandards in terms of requirements [on Phil Archer - due 2015-05-20]. 13:36:14 q+ 13:36:23 action: Grossner to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#EventlikeGeographicFeatures in terms of requirements 13:36:23 Created ACTION-43 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#eventlikegeographicfeatures in terms of requirements [on Karl Grossner - due 2015-05-20]. 13:36:28 kerry: I think the way that the document is structured, it's ok to refer to multiple deliverabes 13:36:37 +1 for Kerry 's single req 13:36:44 action: Tandy to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CreationOfVirtualObservationsfromAnalysisPhaseOfWeatherPredictionModel in terms of requirements 13:36:44 Created ACTION-44 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#creationofvirtualobservationsfromanalysisphaseofweatherpredictionmodel in terms of requirements [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-05-20]. 13:36:52 Alejandro_Llaves: so- sub requirements get rolled up into their primary? 13:36:55 kerry: yes 13:37:03 Frans: agrees with @kerry 13:37:05 action: Lemme to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IncorporatingGeospatialDataIntoInteractive3DGraphicsOnTheWeb in terms of requirements 13:37:06 Created ACTION-45 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#incorporatinggeospatialdataintointeractive3dgraphicsontheweb in terms of requirements [on Stefan Lemme - due 2015-05-20]. 13:37:13 ack next 13:37:20 ... make it lean and mean ... not too many and not a hierarchy 13:37:21 q+ 13:37:32 ChrisLittle: supports kerry's perspective 13:37:52 ... we want to avoid space, time and space-time versions of the same requirements 13:37:54 ack next 13:38:18 Linda: when we looked at the requirements we came up with lots of sub-requirements 13:38:36 q+ 13:38:38 ... they were often "cryptic" so we needed to add more detail to clarify 13:38:45 ack nexy 13:38:55 ... adding sub requirements was a good way to do this ... to make them testable 13:39:18 Frans: I also had problems with some of the requirements - many were only a single line of text 13:39:40 ... they need to be clear - if you don't understand, please raise an issue and the editors will fix 13:39:52 Frans: I like examples - include these for clarification 13:40:19 Frans: the group could help by looking at the requirements to see if they are clear - that would be helpful 13:40:40 Linda: so the requirements doc is [stable] enough to do that now? 13:41:03 Frans: at the moment we [editors] are working through requirements now 13:41:22 Alejandro_Llaves: until we have the first public draft 13:41:47 ... the FPWD will include a transcript of the spreadsheet 13:42:25 I hear the drummer get busy 13:42:25 eparsons: to clarify - the editors recommendation is to hold off reviewing the requirements spreadsheet 13:42:29 ... until FPWD? 13:42:35 Frans: perhaps 13:43:00 q+ 13:43:05 +q 13:43:12 ... if people do the actions currently being generated by @phila then this will help with the review 13:43:16 ack next 13:43:20 ack next 13:43:28 ... so let's wait until the actions have been completed 13:43:47 ack next 13:43:51 kerry: @Linda - there's nothing to stop you providing review now 13:44:09 ... if you spot something please raise it with the editors 13:44:19 Alejandro_Llaves: please provide review and comment - 13:44:39 ... from the _spreadsheet_ ... the document is not finished! 13:44:54 ... we're still transcribing things across 13:45:05 eparsons: thanks for clarifying that 13:45:26 eparsons: EVERYONE: do you actions for next week 13:45:31 ... moving on 13:45:48 eparsons: remaining agenda items are more homework 13:45:59 ... review the principles page 13:46:03 q+ kerry to speak on principles 13:46:23 ... look at what's there now 13:46:24 ack next 13:46:26 kerry, you wanted to speak on principles 13:46:34 ... it does require more work 13:47:01 kerry: I've added some stuff on the wiki about principles ... just a couple of hours ago 13:47:10 ... add your own comments 13:47:30 ... please use your names so we can argue (oops) clarify the points 13:47:56 [principles wiki page: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Principles] 13:48:16 s /volunteer/victim/ 13:48:20 eparsons: we're going to be looking for BP doc editors ... please think about tha 13:48:26 s/tha/that 13:48:47 eparsons: also please be aware that you can add stuff to the standing agenda 13:49:01 ... e.g. a presentation or topic that you would like to discuss 13:49:04 q+ to ask who's going to GWF 13:49:06 eparsons: AOB? 13:49:08 ack next 13:49:09 q+ 13:49:10 phila, you wanted to ask who's going to GWF 13:49:34 I going to GWF 13:49:35 phila: is anyone going to the [INSPIRE] Lisbon meeting - particularly Tuesday evening? 13:49:46 eparsons: I'll be there 13:49:53 Won't be in Lisbon for the INSPIRE ‐ Geospatial World Forum 2015 13:49:54 [anything for a social!] 13:50:13 ack next 13:50:33 Frans: how would we share the presentations? 13:50:58 eparsons: do this as part of the regular meeting ... using this new fangled webex thing too 13:51:16 eparsons: and please add the presentations on the wiki too 13:51:41 eparsons: of course, we want content related to our scope - [not anything random] 13:51:50 kerry: can we try next week? 13:52:04 Frans: [offers to be guineapig] 13:52:07 eparsons: thanks 13:52:11 bye 13:52:17 thanks, bye! 13:52:17 eparsons: ok - we're done today 13:52:17 Thanks, bye 13:52:20 bye 13:52:22 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:52:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:52:28 ChrisLittle has left #sdw 13:52:31 thanks jtandy 13:56:54 JoshLieberman has left #sdw 15:53:40 Zakim has left #sdw 16:45:54 eparsons has joined #sdw