Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

requirements issue-12

<ChrisLittle> * Clemens, could you mute while typing please

<Frans> Lots of background noise!

<Alejandro_Llaves> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/12

<BartvanLeeuwen> kerry, could you mute yourself ?

<ClemensPortele> Chris, I am muted locally

<ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: issue 12 from Barcelona

<ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: for now excluded as considered out-of-scope, but we have the issue still open

<ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: for discussion at f2f meeting, but does not seem important for use cases

<ClemensPortele> Alejandro_Llaves: comments anyone?

<ChrisLittle> * clemens apologies

<ClemensPortele> kerry: maybe not covered by a use case, but seems to be a requirement from IoT community

<ClemensPortele> kerry: suggestion to close the issue for now, but add an action to discuss this with them later

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<kerry> ACTION: kerry to keep in contact with WoT re actuation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Keep in contact with wot re actuation [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-07-15].

<ClemensPortele> ACTION: Alejandro_Llaves to close issue-12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Alejandro_Llaves'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<Alejandro_Llaves> close issue 12

best practice designissues

<Alejandro_Llaves> close: issue-12

<Alejandro_Llaves> :(

<Payam> A good sample for best practice: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150708

<kerry> Are we focussing on "linked data" -- can we use JSON-LD as out primary encoding for each BP, then supplement where necessary?

<ClemensPortele> kerry: Jeremy was keen on using JSON-LD in BPs

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors want to avoid the "usual" basics (have metadata, etc); just reference this as a basis

<kerry> +1

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors do not want a tutorial

<ClemensPortele> Payam: But be clear about things to avoid

<LarsG> +1 to technology independence

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Idea is to use JSON-LD (and other formats) in examples, but be clear that this is just an example

<ChrisLittle> +1 to technology independence

<ChrisLittle> +1 to things to avoid as well as BP

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Approach will be to go requirements and try to group them

<AndreaPerego> I think that what we mean with "technology independence" needs to be clarified.

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Editors will work on a proposal and present it to the group

<ClemensPortele> Payam: Plan is to have a draft available for f2f meeting

<billroberts> I think using JSON-LD for examples is a good idea. Reasonably readable and the JSON bit will be familiar to many non-lD people

<ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: regarding referencing vs repeating - we need to be careful; is referencing general (we inherit all of Data on the Web BP) or are we specific with references

<ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: "technology independence" - what do we mean by this? the web is a platform that has its own technologies

<ClemensPortele> Payam: agrees, document should also be self-sufficient, but should not go into detail with content included in Data on the Web BP

<ClemensPortele> +1 on make references specific (to be clear which requirements or BPs are meant)

<ClemensPortele> kerry: agrees on being technical, but no making the BP a tutorial

<Frans> The scope of the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group, SDWWG, is Web technologies as they may be applied to location. Where relevant, it will promote Linked Data using the 5 Stars of Linked Data paradigm, but this will not be to the exclusion of other technologies.

<ClemensPortele> Frans: points out the statement in the charter; does everyone agree with this or is a change necessary

<AndreaPerego> No change needed, IMO.

<ClemensPortele> Payam: sees the approach discussed consistent with the charter

<ClemensPortele> +1 for no change needed

<kerry> +1 I think we "assume" as frans suggested

<ClemensPortele> Frans: do we assume linked data to be the best practice or are we looking at each UC/Req?

<ClemensPortele> Payam: In many cases linked data is one approach, but others are (equally) valid as well

<ClemensPortele> ... discussion about "best practice" (singular) vs "best practices" (plural)

<ClemensPortele> BartvanLeeuwen: Data on the Web had a similar discussion

<ClemensPortele> BartvanLeeuwen: Approach there is linked data is included in the scope, but not the exclusive approach

<ClemensPortele> kerry: suggests to discuss this when we have a concrete BP example

<billroberts> (sorry forgot before)

<billroberts> +1 agree easier to comment and refine when we can discuss a concrete first draft

<ClemensPortele> Payam: idea was to not assume a certain technology to be the best practice for all use cases

<AndreaPerego> I would say a certain "Web" technology

<billroberts> I liked Jeremy's explanation of the publishers and consumers relationship

<ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: the web should be the basis (not linked data as such), this is the minimal requirement

<kerry> agree we must use uris and also we must link!

<ClemensPortele> Payam: agrees with Andrea

<Payam> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

<ClemensPortele> kerry: agrees with Jeremy's proposal to use the DWBP as a template, but extend to cover both publisher/consumer perspectives

<ClemensPortele> Frans: publishers may also have their own requirements beyond the consumer requirements

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<ClemensPortele> kerry: should we ask editors to use the "template" and create an example?

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ClemensPortele> Frans: a good idea; maybe from the metadata ones?

<AndreaPerego> +1 to metadata

<billroberts> I hear a bit of background noise from somewhere but no speaking (except for Kerry)

<Frans> Good idea to make suggestions on the list

<ClemensPortele> kerry: please make suggestions on the list where to start

<ClemensPortele> Payam: editors will work on the grouping

<ClemensPortele> kerry: maybe do both (grouping, example) in parallel

<Frans> I like the idea of picking one BP requirement as an example

approve the minutes

<Payam> +1

<billroberts> (missed last week's call so can't vote)

<AndreaPerego> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes

<Frans> Kerry, you also did not do the patent call

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1 minutes

<MattPerry> +1

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html

<AndreaPerego> I was not there

<cory> +1

<kerry> +1

<LarsG> +1

<MattPerry> +1

W3C and OGC patent calls

<Frans> I have not read the minutes entirely yet

Sapporo

<ClemensPortele> kerry: reminder to register for TPAC

<ClemensPortele> kerry: idea is to finalise 1st working draft BP

<ClemensPortele> kerry: start work on ontologies

<ClemensPortele> kerry: status at OGC?

<ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele: email vote started (low turnout in OGC DWG telecon)

AOB?

<ChrisLittle> Bye and Thank you

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

<AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye!

<billroberts> ok, thanks very much, bye!

<ClemensPortele> bye

<MattPerry> bye

<Payam> bye

<Frans> have a good week

<AndreaPerego> rsagent, draft minutes