Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015

<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015

<LarsG> semi-apologies from me today, I'll have to leave in about 30 minutes...

<jonblower> +present Jon Blower

<joshlieberman> +present joshlieberman

Approve Minutes

<ahaller2> +present ahaller2

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes.html

<frans> +1

<jtandy> +0 (failing memory)

<eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes

<ChrisLittle> +1

<eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes

<phila> It looks as if I was there +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<jonblower> +0 (wasn't there!)

<Alejandro_Llaves> +0 not present

<ahaller2> +1

Patent Call

<LarsG> +0 wasn't there

UCR Issue 15 Discussion

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15

<jonblower> thanks for the welcomes all!

<eparsons> scribe: Kerry

<scribe> scribe: kerry

<scribe> scribenick: kerry

<AndreaPerego> About the meeting minutes, I guess the correct link is http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes.html (Aug, 19th)

issue 15

frans: after email discussion, is proposal for new requirement

<frans> Proposal for new requirement "It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource"

note this email too: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Sep/0001.html

<ahaller2> s/reuquirement/requirement

<jtandy> This makes sense ... wrt temporal referencing, this supports Allen Calculus type stuff

frans: will be possible to indetify predictions from real time observations

<joshlieberman> Does this include or leave out real world features that a Web resource may represent?

phila: are we talking about versions?

frans: its about owl-time -- a temporal requirement not spatail
... about a future event or an old document in the past

phila: notes it will cause controversy.

<AndreaPerego> s/fuure/future/

jeremy: this is a subset of the allen calculus
... equiv to spatial reasoning

<phila> That helps, thank you, Jeremy

<ChrisLittle> yes

jeremy ... should go on the full range of allen calculus

<frans> allen calculus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_interval_algebra

jon: clarify if about relationship between time doc is published and when it is about (that moves into the past). like valid time and observation time

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

frans: can be used for any web resource

Jon: have to worry about what the time refers to

<phila> foaf:primaryTopic Jon?

<jonblower> phila; looks sensible, is there a dct: term too?

chris: we did dicuss all this in the email. this issue in data on the web is not really explicit
... is buried in versioning, etc

ed: is it more of a data issue or a spatial issue?

josh: an important requirement but only a part of it. we need realtionship between resources
... and between a web resource and its real world concept
... am happy with former but not latter

s/hapy/happy

frans: wonders whether its already there in owl time

<ahaller2> s/alreadt/already

josh: owl-time does not say anything about the temporal relation between real world resource and the web resource

<Alejandro_Llaves> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/14

alejandro: is happy with the wording of the requirement. could be extended to say there is a need for ...?

<Alejandro_Llaves> In the meeting of 2015-08-12 (see http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-sdw-minutes) this issue was resolved, with the decision to add a new requirement for the OWL Time deliverable: "OWL Time should be updated to align with the 2012 update of OWL datatypes and 2012 update of xsd datatypes" Temporal reasoning and relations are already in OWL Time, so there is no reason for such a requirement.

alejandro: issue 14 has some relation to this about temporal reasoning relations.
... so is this current issue already covered in owl-time?

Frans: yes do we need this requirement?

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note our discussion from two weeks ago about interaction with DWBP group

jeremy: irrespectively, we have a requirement we can keep anyway.

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-sdw-minutes

jeremy: about whther spatial or not want to talk with DWBP working group -- see those minutes
... we propose that if it is not in the DWWG and it is important we can hand over to them.

Ed agrees

<joshlieberman> +1 even if something is not explicitly spatial, it may be needed for our work and not a priority for Data on the Web

<frans> "It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Sep/0001.html

<ChrisLittle> kerry draws attention to this email, all those different types of times (valid, transaction, etc) not in Allen calculus

<Alejandro_Llaves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Sep/0001.html

<phila> Allen's Interval Algebra

frans: owl-time does not say anything about how those statements might be used

<Alejandro_Llaves> To me, Antoine's req. is more about the need to model predictions, and specify they are different to things happening in the future.

<joshlieberman> Can we consider that Allen calculus / OWL-time is adequate as long as we can define and represent in Web resources events such as predictions?

ed: how we solve it is not important

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

<LarsG> I have to leave now, sorry

<frans> +q

chris: the requirement we have is not covered by DWBP which only does versioning etc

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that the BP doc includes a need to express spatial _and_ temporal information

chris: eg replacing data by some from a differnt source... is a real requirement

jeremy: lots of requirements for spatail and teporal information

allejandro: antoine's is not covered by issue-15 which covers historians saying that some even happened in the future wrt some other eventt.
... antoine's is about tagging something as a prediction that is differnet.
... if we put i n the issue-15 requirement we ... we need temporal relations between web resources in the use cases that drove this.

frans: thanks for discussion -- needs a bit more research now.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say Agreed, DWBP are talking about versioning (of datasets), not temporal relationships

ACTION to Frans to work on issue-15

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

Phila: keep on this. Do not rely on DWBP

<AndreaPerego> http://data.gov.uk/library/designing-uri-sets-for-location

<phila> ACTION: knibbe to work on Issue-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Work on issue-15 [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-09-09].

Andrea: some more examples would help -- we have some from the UK -- denoting spatial objects at a given point in time. How do we do this in the data?
... is this too theoretical? we need to see how people address this in practice.

Best Practice Progress to date

jeremy: set some homework -- some has been done but not all

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives

jeremy: could go thru that cross referencing or could do out of band

jeremy... consolidated those 50+ use cases to 7 common themes

scribe: e.g. linkin things to each other, publishing with clear semantics, exposing datasets thru apis,
... enabling discovery, assignment of identifiers, expressing geospatial and temporal information
... sensor data, and also other stuff that could be stuffed in somewhere
... yet to allocate requirements to these themes
... why are we doing this? if DWBP is already doing it we should not do it again
... also the web architecture doc -- we need to support that 2004 architecture.

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

scribe: dont use the web as a glorified usb stick

<phila> I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I offer the excuse of it being August and having a family. Now that August is temporally past, I will endeavour to complete Action-61

jon: thks for intro
... is 50 use case doc still live?

phil: one was added today

Alejandro: ok to add still if frans ok too

Cross - referencing homework

<frans> Current use cases and requirements doc: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

jon cloning, changing and adding pull request

<Alejandro_Llaves> grazie, Andrea! ;)

kerry: found surprising little relevant advice from DWBP

jeremy: yep, we need to create that

publishing clear semantics

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#Cross-ref_with_data_on_the_web_BP_.28Kerry.29

<cperey> thanks!

<cperey> yes

<cperey> +1

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#exposing_datasets_through_APIs

jeremy: exposing datasets thu apis

ed: only 30% thru, yet to complete, finish this time next week

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#Crossreferencing_.28Linda.29

Jeremy: enabling discovery
... see minutes from 2 weeks ago. Linda has written it up here.

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#assignment_of_identifiers_to_.E2.80.98real-world_things.E2.80.99_.26_information_resources

phil on identifiers...

scribe: had a lot of email about url or uri or iri -- this is a big issue

phila, promises to deliver

<AndreaPerego> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements#Requirements_not_specific_to_spatial_data

andrea: drafted some preliminary requirements for best practice from barcelo meeting
... included pointer s to ddwbp. will update the wiki with this.

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#expressing_.28geo.29spatial_information_.26_temporal_information

jeremy: expressing geospatial and temporal info, chris?

chris: am on it, but not written up yet. There are some such as descriptve metadata, standard formats etc.
... very little overlap
... if you are going to have some descriptive metadata beware of xxxx

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about DWBP in general, expectations, audiences etc.

chris: will do before next week

phil: dwbp is very different to this group, with a different brief. they are writing the basic so that it is there

phila: will propose to them that they change their name to keep separate from discussion about hypermedia for example. the topic is too vast. expect them to do the basics.

jeremy: when chris said spatial metadata i thought of geodcat-ap. Should also be cross-referened here.

Andrea: yes, we have temproal and spatial reference system open issues too. thinking of dublin core but might not be good enough
... we have problem specifying spatial coverage and how to represent geometry. Many overlaps with this group that have been documented.
... will be revised for final version september or october. We could consider this is a possible candidate to reference from our bp.

jeremy: could be "here is a body of work that we think is good" in our doc

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#sensor_data

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#crossref_to_Data_on_the_web_BP_.28Kerry.29

<cperey> bye bye everyone!

etopic: nottingham

nottingham

ed: f2f for 2 hours,

<AndreaPerego> Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be in Nottingham.

<jtandy> +1

phil meeting to start one hour earlier

<AndreaPerego> +1

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye!

ed: we can do gotmeeting and webex for this meeting? probably gotomeeting

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

<eparsons> bye

<ahaller2> bye

<frans> bye!

meeting closed 11:59 pm

<jonblower> bye all! (Andrea, phila, see you in Brussels next weeks!)

<ChrisLittle> bye

<joshlieberman> bye

<MattPerry> bye

bye!