Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 13 May 2015

<phila> http://www.w3.org/2015/03/inspire/

<billroberts> got it now, thanks

<Alejandro_Llaves> I just joined the webex

<scribe> scribe: jtandy

<scribe> scribe: Jeremy Tandy

<phila> For those who are in mourning for zakim... http://www.w3.org/2015/05/zakim.mp3

<scribe> scribenick: jtandy

<Frans> +Frans

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/06-sdw-minutes

eparsons: requests approval of last weeks minutes ...

<eparsons> +1

<phila> (I was absent)

+1

<LarsG> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<Frans> +1

<kerry> PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes, kerry

RESOLUTION: accept last weeks minutes

eparsons: asks if there's anyone new on the call

[no response]

eparsons: does the weekly OGC patents call ...
... main effort this week is looking at the completion of the use cases for the second group
... SSN, Time, Coverage

kerry: we're going to work through the use cases using the requirements doc in it's current state

<Alejandro_Llaves> Latest version updated today: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

kerry: starting with #31

<Frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SelectHierarchicalGeographicalRegionsForUseInDataAnalysisOrVisualisation

<phila> UC 31

Frans: [agrees with kerry] we will put issues into the tracker based on today's discussion
... why do we start with #31?

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q on completing use cases

kerry: we've not covered these as a group - I think Alejandro_Llaves has done it independently

<Zakim> Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on completing use cases

[it = put the requirements into the spreadsheet!]

Alejandro_Llaves: yes - this was me. we called for contribution from the people who put the use cases in

<phila> The spreadsheet

Alejandro_Llaves: and for those that did not response I made a best guess

<Frans> I should note that numbering of use cases is different in spreadsheet and UCR document. The IDs should be stable.

kerry: we have discussed things at 2 other meetings since the F2F

Alejandro_Llaves: I would say that going through the use cases one by one as a group will be very time consuming
... that's why we asked for contribution

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing

phila: looking through the UC doc, there are some that don't have any requirements (see example)
... are there some use cases that don't have requirements or is it that this is still a work in progress

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q on completeness of UCR document in SSN and Time

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

<Zakim> Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on completeness of UCR document in SSN and Time

phila: do we need all 47 use caes?
... if there are some that don't really relate to requirements?

Alejandro_Llaves: I finished today to complete the use cases for the time ontology deliverable
... coverage has not been done yet
... there are still some [use cases] where things are not really clear yet

billrobe_: there is a chance that some requirements are not captured - nor the links between reqs and UC

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

billrobe_: happy to do this [offline] - what's the easiest way to provide this input?

Frans: it's up to me to provide the connections between UC and reqs -
... but noticed that the reqs weren't stable yet
... some UC are isolated because I haven't got around to them yet
... all 47 UC are probably relevant

<eparsons> +1 to all 47

<billrobe_> so just email questions/comments/suggestions to the list? or do a Github pull request?

Frans: responding to @billrobe_ the key thing is to check that the requirement is clear

Alejandro_Llaves: adds that the best way to contribute is by editing the spreadsheet
... then we can add the content of the comment into the [doc]

<billrobe_> ok thanks Alejandro

<phila> jtandy: When we're looking at the reqs, do we want to check that they are testable?

Alejandro_Llaves: if it is not clear then we will raise an issue of the tracker

Frans: being testable is not an explicit "requirement for requirement"

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to talk on testable requrements

jtandy: we should be thinking about _if_ we can build a test for the requirement
... else if might be a principle

Frans: I've added the testability into the glossary

kerry: we have both functional and non-functional requirements - the latter don't have to be testable
... so not all reqs need to be tested

eparsons: let's get back to the agenda?

kerry: do we need to go through the use cases in plenary?
... perhaps just to look at only those use cases that don't have reqs yet
... @billrobe_ - do you want to review UC 31 here & now or do that offline

billrobe_: prefer to do this offline & report back

kerry: we're apply @billrobe_'s response to everyone
... this applies to EVERYONE

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to suggest action items?

<Frans> Is 31 the spreadsheet number or or the UCR number?

<phila> ACTION: Bill Roberts to check that the requirements have been captured from http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SelectHierarchicalGeographicalRegionsForUseInDataAnalysisOrVisualisation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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].

kerry: if you've proposed a use case then you are now [required] to do the review of the requirements

billrobe_: it's time now to go back through the use cases and requirements and build the x-refs

kerry: there's more meat on the bones of the requirements - so they'll be easier to work with
... the spreadsheet is most up to date for coverage requirements
... primarily we're looking at defining _new_ requirements

phila: I've created an action for billroberts
... do you want me to do the same for all the others?

kerry: what about those people not in the group?

<JoshLieberman> UC 31 - might want to consider that what's being described is largely a discrete coverage, so the coverage deliverable might be involved.

phila: action item on me to write to Erwin - I think he's the only one

[phila makes a joke]

[tumbleweed]

<phila> ACTION: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SatelliteDataProcessing in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#satellitedataprocessing in terms of requirements [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-05-20].

JoshLieberman: UC ?? describes a discrete coverage - features that cover that geographical domain.

<phila> ACTION: simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsEMII in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsemii in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20].

JoshLieberman: therefore discrete coverages become a key requirement for UC 31

<phila> ACTION: Simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsDataProviders in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsdataproviders in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20].

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q on sub-requirements

<Zakim> Alejandro_Llaves, you wanted to comment on sub-requirements

<phila> ACTION: Simon to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MarineObservationsDataConsumers in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#marineobservationsdataconsumers in terms of requirements [on Simon Cox - due 2015-05-20].

eparsons: so let's close that out at the moment and follow up next week to make sure everyone has done their actions!

Alejandro_Llaves: how do we deal with sub requirements?

<phila> ACTION: Linda to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#BuildingInformationManagementAndDataSharing, which came from Henk Schaap - Gobar, in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> 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].

Alejandro_Llaves: for example, coverage reqs spreadsheet indicates [an example of] a sub requirement

<phila> 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> 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].

Alejandro_Llaves: should we treat as a sub requirement or individual requirements?

eparsons: what was the rationale for making a sub requirement?

<phila> 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> 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].

Alejandro_Llaves: the content of the requirement comes from both coverage and time deliverables

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on subrequirements

<phila> 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> 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].

<phila> ACTION: erich to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TCGAMicroscopyImaging in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#tcgamicroscopyimaging in terms of requirements [on Erich Bremer - due 2015-05-20].

<AndreaPerego> ACTION: AndreaPerego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeospatialExtensionsToDomainIndependentMetadataSchemas in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action11]

kerry: suggests that you wrap it into one requirement - but make it explicit that this covers spatial and time

<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#geospatialextensionstodomainindependentmetadataschemas in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20].

<phila> ACTION: kerry to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CropYieldEstimationUsingMultipleSatellites, which came from Zheng-Shu Zhou, in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> 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].

kerry: have one requirement- the more general one

<AndreaPerego> ACTION: AndreaPerego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ImprovingDiscoveryOfSpatialDataOnTheWeb in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#improvingdiscoveryofspatialdataontheweb in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20].

<phila> ACTION: perego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeospatialExtensionsToDomainIndependentMetadataSchemas in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#geospatialextensionstodomainindependentmetadataschemas in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20].

kerry: but include the specific sub cases as part of the description of the general requirement

<phila> ACTION: perego to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ImprovingDiscoveryOfSpatialDataOnTheWeb in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#improvingdiscoveryofspatialdataontheweb in terms of requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-05-20].

Alejandro_Llaves: [... indicates that this could be complex]

kerry: I think this is OK - it's ok for a requirement to refer back to multiple delierables

<phila> ACTION: Archer to contact Erwin Folmer and ask him to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#INSPIREComplianceUsingWebStandards in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> 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].

<phila> ACTION: Grossner to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#EventlikeGeographicFeatures in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action17]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#eventlikegeographicfeatures in terms of requirements [on Karl Grossner - due 2015-05-20].

kerry: I think the way that the document is structured, it's ok to refer to multiple deliverabes

<ChrisLittle> +1 for Kerry 's single req

<phila> ACTION: Tandy to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CreationOfVirtualObservationsfromAnalysisPhaseOfWeatherPredictionModel in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action18]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#creationofvirtualobservationsfromanalysisphaseofweatherpredictionmodel in terms of requirements [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-05-20].

Alejandro_Llaves: so- sub requirements get rolled up into their primary?

kerry: yes

Frans: agrees with @kerry

<phila> ACTION: Lemme to review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IncorporatingGeospatialDataIntoInteractive3DGraphicsOnTheWeb in terms of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-sdw-minutes.html#action19]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Review http://w3c.github.io/sdw/usecases/sdwusecasesandrequirements.html#incorporatinggeospatialdataintointeractive3dgraphicsontheweb in terms of requirements [on Stefan Lemme - due 2015-05-20].

Frans: make it lean and mean ... not too many and not a hierarchy

ChrisLittle: supports kerry's perspective
... we want to avoid space, time and space-time versions of the same requirements

Linda: when we looked at the requirements we came up with lots of sub-requirements
... they were often "cryptic" so we needed to add more detail to clarify
... adding sub requirements was a good way to do this ... to make them testable

Frans: I also had problems with some of the requirements - many were only a single line of text
... they need to be clear - if you don't understand, please raise an issue and the editors will fix
... I like examples - include these for clarification
... the group could help by looking at the requirements to see if they are clear - that would be helpful

Linda: so the requirements doc is [stable] enough to do that now?

Frans: at the moment we [editors] are working through requirements now

Alejandro_Llaves: until we have the first public draft
... the FPWD will include a transcript of the spreadsheet

<Frans> I hear the drummer get busy

eparsons: to clarify - the editors recommendation is to hold off reviewing the requirements spreadsheet
... until FPWD?

Frans: perhaps

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

Frans: if people do the actions currently being generated by @phila then this will help with the review
... so let's wait until the actions have been completed

kerry: @Linda - there's nothing to stop you providing review now
... if you spot something please raise it with the editors

Alejandro_Llaves: please provide review and comment -
... from the _spreadsheet_ ... the document is not finished!
... we're still transcribing things across

eparsons: thanks for clarifying that
... EVERYONE: do you actions for next week
... moving on
... remaining agenda items are more homework
... review the principles page
... look at what's there now

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on principles

eparsons: it does require more work

kerry: I've added some stuff on the wiki about principles ... just a couple of hours ago
... add your own comments
... please use your names so we can argue (oops) clarify the points

[principles wiki page: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Principles]

<ChrisLittle> s /volunteer/victim/

eparsons: we're going to be looking for BP doc editors ... please think about that
... also please be aware that you can add stuff to the standing agenda
... e.g. a presentation or topic that you would like to discuss
... AOB?

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask who's going to GWF

<eparsons> I going to GWF

phila: is anyone going to the [INSPIRE] Lisbon meeting - particularly Tuesday evening?

eparsons: I'll be there

<AndreaPerego> Won't be in Lisbon for the INSPIRE ‐ Geospatial World Forum 2015

[anything for a social!]

Frans: how would we share the presentations?

eparsons: do this as part of the regular meeting ... using this new fangled webex thing too
... and please add the presentations on the wiki too
... of course, we want content related to our scope - [not anything random]

kerry: can we try next week?

Frans: [offers to be guineapig]

eparsons: thanks

<ChrisLittle> bye

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

eparsons: ok - we're done today

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye

bye