See also: IRC log
Kerry: starts the meeting
<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-sdw-minutes.html
+0 (was absent)
<AndreaPerego> +1
<eparsons> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<kerry> +1
<frans> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Kerry: no reactions so moving on to main business
Kerry: will be different: starts
one hour earlier and runs for 2 hours.
... many people will be present in Nottingham, others remotely.
Webex expected to work.
... occasion is the OGC TC meeting. There are likely to be
observers.
... the extra hour will be spent on requirements around Time
deliverable & do presentations on that. There are a few
lined up.
... the page about technical talks on the wiki has a list.
<frans> Tech talks: http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Technology_Talks
LarsG: mentions Ray Denenberg who is willing to do a talk on Time.
Kerry: any questions?
... that will be about 1 hour, and the rest will be about the
Best Practice.
thx Andrea
Kerry: we need Jeremy for the next topic but he's not here.
Ed: I can cover it if he doesn't arrive.
<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives
Kerry: Jeremy's idea was that we
look through the narratives he made based on the use cases; and
to cross-reference those themes with the DWBP WG and the W3C
Web architecture.
... people have suggested other things they should be checked
against, as well. I did one last week, Bill did the 'other
stuff' one.
... not a lot of relevance to what we do here.
... a particular thing is provenance, something else to think
about is license information.
... the requirements of ssn also overlap with DWBP regarding
downloading, user feedback
ed: I had a conversation with
Jeremy about this.
... next step is to make the doc more concrete.
... over the next few weeks Jeremy wants to put the document
skeleton structure together.
... by the face to face meeting
... looked at how a best practice can best be documented
... for web developers who don't necessarily have a spatial
data background
... not only online document but could also do e.g. video or
something else.
... Next week, everyone is asked to bring examples to the
meeting
... is this clear?
<kerry> ACTION: ed to bring example of bluetooth to next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Bring example of bluetooth to next meeting [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-09-16].
Frans: good idea, but how do we collect those examples?
<kerry> ACTION: ed to create appropriate wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Create appropriate wiki page [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-09-16].
ed: there's a topic on the agenda next week to do the collecting. We could make a wiki page in advance where you can put links to examples. We hadn't thought about that bit.
<kerry> ACTION: frans to add examples to wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Add examples to wiki [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-09-16].
frans: makes sense. Won't be there in person but can perhaps add some examples.
eparsons: add a bit of description - how is multimedia/hypermedia used etc
frans: isn't use of multimedia restricted?
eparsons: don't know but we will find out. It's not a normative document.
Kerry: is there anyone else who wants to contribute before next week?
eparsons: probably we need time to think. Could be anything, e.g. the instructions for your washing machine.
<kerry> ack
Kerry: The SDW BP document is developing, but I'm a bit dissatified with it. It kind of says stuff that is already commonplace and very few implementation details.
eparsons: agrees, it should not be a high level document, but should be quite practical.
<joshlieberman> The "best practice" for OGC BP documents is really to specify "use this standard in this way"
kerry: people could also bring along BP documents that they don't like, as an example.
eparsons: any people here with other ideas?
<joshlieberman> The great thing about standards... is so many to choose from
frans: the BP document could
identify gaps, but are we supposed to do anything with these
gaps? Or do we just notice them but not more?
... example: the geo-DCAT-AP profile
... identifies gaps that need filling, this group could help do
that
eparsons: if we have time and it fits the charter, we could fix them, but if we want the BP to be a cookbook, we want to point to stuff that already works.
<kerry> +1 to josh's remark
joshlieberman: two remarks. 1 in
the OGC a best practice is not independent from standards, but
helps solve confusion around using standards.
... among these standards, use this one for this, use these
parts of the standard, etc
... in my opinion let's not include missing things in the
BP
AndreaPerego: if the BP just points to existing standards; what do we do if a solution is not found for a requirement?
<joshlieberman> So, three BP sections: 1) existing best practices with existing standards; 2) new practices with existing standards; 3) gaps in existing standards that block useful practices.
<joshlieberman> for 3) -- recommendations but not solutions for new standards
eparsons: agrees with Josh: recognize the areas that need work/solutions in a separate section of the document.
<frans> I think we should take steps to fill gaps. That does not mean we should develop new standards, but we could at least recommend development of new standards.
<joshlieberman> in regards to 2), the OGC IP addresses those potential practices where organized use by multiple parties is needed to test whether they could be "best"
AndreaPerego: if we only recommend what's already there, it is only of limited use, projects need solutions to the gaps as well.
<frans> I agree with Andrea. Completeness of best practices is important.
eparsons: but in the case of e.g. coordinate systems, there are solutions; it will take discussion to choose, but we can recommend a best practice for that.
<joshlieberman> SDWWG recommendations in 2) can serve a similar purpose of encouraging practices to be tried out.
eparsons: where there just isn't the knowledge and understanding, there we can't have a solution.
AndreaPerego: still I see a number of gaps without solution and am concerned about not providing solutions for those.
eparsons: valid point; there are gaps, but I think probably we have most of the building blocks. So less gaps than you fear.
kerry: keep telling us so that we don't miss important things.
eparsons: we must keep reflecting on the point Andrea was making from the perspective of different user communities.
<kerry> ACTION: andrea to ensure we are not missing entirely important user requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Ensure we are not missing entirely important user requirements [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-09-16].
frans: gaps can block efforts; for some best practices we have multiple standards and for others we have none. If the latter is the case this blocks your efforts. So should we prioritize finding and solving gaps?
eparsons: disagree. Focus most on what we know works. If we concentrate on just the gaps we miss describing the practical steps that can be taken.
<SimonCox> Is it important to pick winners?
eparsons: yes, it is important to pick winners.
Kerry: please remember to provide examples next week.
Can anyone say someone about the OGC testbed?
frans: should we review the engineering reports for information relevant to the best practice and narratives and if so, how do we go about it?
joshlieberman: there is joint
membership, so everyone in this group is allowed access to
these documents before they're public.
... or we can contact the editors and ask them if there is BP
material in their documents
kerry: is it realistic to want to go through these documents and cross-reference like we did with the DWBP and Web architecture?
<kerry> ACTION: josh to ask tesbed email list to proide pointers to content we should knpow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Error finding 'josh'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
joshlieberman: these are a lot more documents. Perhaps better to ask the participants to point out what is relevant. Volunteers to do so.
kerry: and we can allocate a few
people to follow up on those pointers.
... any other business?
... no response, might close early.
<AndreaPerego> ACTION: lieberman to ask tesbed email list to proide pointers to content we should knpow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Ask tesbed email list to proide pointers to content we should knpow [on Joshua Lieberman - due 2015-09-16].
kerry: please let us know if
you'll attend TPAC
... getting close to decision and travel arrangement time.
Record on the wiki if you'll attend. There will also be
telecon.
<AndreaPerego> I won't be at TPAC
kerry: a good few people have
already done so, thank you for that.
... any other business?
<SimonCox> Me neither.
<eparsons> Thanks Linda !!!
<AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye!
<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
<eparsons> bye
kerry: closes meeting - don't forget, an hour earlier next week.
<LarsG> Thanks, bye
bye!
<AZ> bye