Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2015

<kerry> scribe: simon

<frans> some help for scribes: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html

<kerry> scribenick: simoncox

<phila_irc_only> Apologies from me, I can't dial in (I'm next to a municipal swimming pool and about to leave to go home) Normal service should be resumed next week

<Linda> The agenda is:

<Linda> 1. Sapporo F2F Update and discussion 2. Future work plan 3. UCR second public draft and remaining issues 4. Candidate best practice topics for BP doc

<jtandy> present_ ChrisLittle

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151021

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/21-sdw-minutes

<phila_irc_only> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151104

<Linda> +1

<frans> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ahaller2> +1

Motion: approve minutes

<billroberts> sorry, missed the 21 Oct call

<kerry> +2

No objections (but wasn't there

<kerry> +1

<ChrisLittle> missed 21st too

RESOLUTION: minutes approved

<ahaller2> patent call

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Sapporo update

Discussion on candidate best practices for BP document

5-6 non-regular people, one new face offered testing and implementation

Significant offer of resources

(name not known)

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

<ChrisLittle> * was it Tanagi-san?

1. Linking data

2. publishing with clear semantics

3. anabling discovery

4. assignment of identifiers

5. large datasets

not addressed: exposing through APIs

not discussed - spatial, observations

(also help from data on the web best practice group)

OPPORTUNITY! control our scope

drop topics that are general as they are already under control in dwwg

incl. discovery, assignment of identifiers

Cite solutions from DWBP where they have a scope that matches SDWWG requirements and expectations

e.g.

1. publishing data with clear semantics - focus on semantics of spatial relationships

2. enabling discovery, 3. linking data - Ed not enamoured of current SDIs - catalog ... service endpoint ... query endpoint - this is NOT 'data on the web'

<billroberts> +1 to Ed's reported opinion. I generally lose the will to live before finding anything useful from INSPIRE

can't trawl endpiints, leverage links - have to *query*

Browsing not supported.

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

(this was consensus in meeting)

<kerry> +1

<Linda> +1

what is this catalogue thing?

<kerry> +q?

<kerry> -q?

frans: reduce scope will have big impact on BP document

SImonCOx: clarify distinction being made between catalogues and search-engines

Kerry: it was findability

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon's comment

things being harvested into catalogue/index need to be more link rich and support finding atomic items, not just datasets

<AndreaPerego> http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/

andrea: geodcat-ap - has API for CSW

convert from ISO 19115/19139 -> RDF/RDFa

optimise what is exposed through catalogues

can embed metadata in HTML pages, more findable

but not enough links!

findable but still not _linked_

<frans> Yes, promoting assigning URIs to things will be a big step forward

simon: Capabilities response needs to include links, not lists!

<jtandy> +1 to AndreaPerego 's comment

billroberts: difficult to link to a specific item
... want boundary of Edinburgh, not shapefile of all LGA boundaries

<ChrisLittle> +1 to granularity

<frans> In favour of INSPIRE: it has semantics that are harmonized in Europe. Quite an achievement!

<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to explain about the bug in your ear at TPAC

(THat looks like a strong requirement)

<jtandy> also +1 to getting the granularity of linking right

Bartvanleeuwen: ? spatial properties should be links ?

Bart: need adapter to expose existing services (WFS) as linked data
... started work in context of Dutch fire services
... demo later this month?

Jeremy: timbl keen that we cover OpenStreetMap

<frans> Do we have a liaison with OSM?

<ChrisLittle> +1 to OSM UC

OSM - great adoption, must be doing something right

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BPs_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC

SImon: tools?

<frans> Or a contact with linkedgeodata.org (which is based on OSM)?

<jtandy> @frans ... no liaison yet - but I think we can chase up some links to those orgs

Kerry: proposed new item, joint not w DWWP group

Hadley Beeman, Dan Brickley

<frans> They will be glad to hear TimBL supports their efforts

future work plan

Kerry: main Wiki page updated w updated workplan

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page#Deliverables

<frans> I am not screaming

BP to be published December

<ChrisLittle> OGC WGs can issue drafts easily

<jtandy> SimonCox: OGC working drafts are just posted to pending documents - no review period

QUestion around how OGC can publish 'public working drafts'

and how fast

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note about proximity between BP FPWD and OGC TC

<ChrisLittle> +1 to simon corrcting Jermey

OGC TC in Sydney week commencing 30 November

<jtandy> SimonCox: can you reverse the order of starting Time and SSN work?

Future meetings will consider SSN, Time for half of meeting

alternating weeks, approx.

Coverage deliverable - work to start in March

UCR document

<billroberts> can we add a hopefully very brief item to today's agenda: confirmation of date/location of next F2F?

6-8 February meeting at Geonovum, on Best Practices

<billroberts> 6/7 Feb is Sat/Sun - that's ok for me, but just to check no mistake?

<Linda> It's 8 - 10, right?

3-day meeting (lined up with local linked-data meeting)

8-10 February meeting at Geonovum, on Best Practices

scribe: and other topics for SDWWG

OGC TC in SYdney - report to GeoSemantics domain working group

<jtandy> (the final day of the next F2F, 10th Feb, should include interactions with the Linked Data community to validate our work so far)

1/2 hour

will proceed with regular teleconference anyway (7am Sydney time)

<frans> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/17)

Motion: issue 17 - medium resolution global grid?

<frans> PROPOSAL: The candidate requirement "It should be possible to represent a medium resolution global grid, e.g. 90m raster data across the globe." will not be included in the UCR document.

-1

sorry - +1

<ChrisLittle> +1 not include

<jtandy> +1 ... not include this requirement

<billroberts> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<Linda> +1

<Ian_Holt> +1

<frans> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27

RESOLUTION: No 90m global grid

<frans> PROPOSAL: Add a note to the description of the "Coverage in Linked Data" deliverable in the UCR document: "The OGC is currently working on refinements of ISO 19123 (in particular, the OGC Coverage Implementation Schema 1.1), which could result in specifications that allow a higher level of interoperability of implementations. The Working Group will also consider these forthcoming standards."

Motion: issue 27 - add note that new OGC work is in scope

<ChrisLittle> +1

(can't change charter, but can point it out in UCR document)

+1

<Linda> +1

<kerry> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Ian_Holt> +1

<jtandy> +0

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to talk about F2F

Jeremy: OGC CIS is too closely coupled to GML approach?

<ChrisLittle> +1 to looser rather than tighter coupling

Jeremy: must avoid close coupling with implementation choice.

<jtandy> +1 to considering them

RESOLUTION: can consider new OGC work

on coverage implementations

Next meeting: 2015-11-11

<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye

<ChrisLittle> bye and thank you

<Ian_Holt> thanks. bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<Linda> Bye!

<ahaller2_> thx bye

<MattPerry> bye

<billroberts> thx!

<frans> bye! And thanks Kerry & Simon