19:59:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
19:59:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-irc
19:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:59:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
19:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:59:42 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
19:59:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:59:43 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2015
19:59:56 <KJanowicz> KJanowicz has joined #sdw
20:00:04 <kerry> chair: ed
20:00:06 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #sdw
20:00:11 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
20:00:12 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:01:03 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdw
20:01:08 <LarsG> present+ LarsG
20:01:18 <kerry> regrets+ phil archer
20:01:24 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
20:01:26 <kerry> regrets+ jeremy tandy
20:01:32 <kerry> present+ kerry
20:01:33 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
20:01:36 <frans> present+ frans
20:01:40 <kerry> regrets+ scott simmons
20:01:49 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
20:02:15 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
20:02:20 <Linda> present+ Linda
20:02:29 <kerry> regrets+ clemens portele
20:02:52 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
20:03:04 <kerry> regrets+ rachel heaven
20:03:07 <KJanowicz> I have not used zakim for a while but I can try
20:03:10 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
20:03:15 <kerry> regrets+ payam
20:03:39 <kerry> regrets+ andreas harth
20:03:43 <ahaller2> i volunteer
20:03:54 <kerry> regrets+ Alejandro Llaves
20:04:03 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdw
20:04:08 <frans> A deed of true altruism grants happiness for at least a day
20:04:24 <eparsons> scribe ahaller2
20:04:31 <kerry> scribe: armin haller
20:04:31 <joshlieberman> present+ joshlieberman
20:04:35 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
20:04:37 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
20:04:47 <ahaller2> eparsons: minutes from last week
20:04:48 <ChrisLittle> Present+
20:04:49 <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:00 <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-sdw-minutes.html
20:05:02 <kerry> scribeNick: ahaller2
20:05:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
20:05:06 <eparsons> +1
20:05:09 <Linda> +1
20:05:10 <billroberts> +1
20:05:11 <frans> +1
20:05:13 <KJanowicz> present+ KJanowicz
20:05:16 <kerry> +1
20:05:23 <ChrisLittle> +1
20:05:23 <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:24 <KJanowicz> +1
20:05:28 <joshlieberman> +1
20:05:34 <LarsG> 0 (wasn't there...)
20:05:47 <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
20:05:48 <ahaller2> eparsons: patent call
20:06:01 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:06:10 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
20:06:15 <eparsons> Topic: UCR issue 16
20:07:36 <ahaller2> frans: open ucr issues to be resolved. issue 16 is about valid time. original thought that it was a requirement for OWL time, but OWL time is not about how time is used.
20:07:40 <kerry> q+ to speak on ssn at end of this ucr discussion
20:08:06 <eparsons> Ack next
20:08:07 <KJanowicz> (but spatial is almost always spatio-temporal)
20:08:08 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on ssn at end of this ucr discussion
20:08:25 <frans> "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)."
20:08:26 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdw
20:08:28 <ahaller2> ... similar to provenance issue. Problems related to valid time, but not a truly spatial problem. Solution could be to rephrase the requirement to:
20:08:44 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:08:52 <ahaller2> s/to:/to above
20:09:11 <SimonCox> Apologies for late arrival - connectivity problems
20:09:54 <kerry> q+
20:10:05 <ahaller2> ... any objections to the proposal to rewrite?
20:10:07 <eparsons> ack next
20:10:34 <joshlieberman> If others do not provide appropriate vocabulary for valid time predicates pertaining to features, does this group step in?
20:10:39 <ahaller2> kerry: closely related to the OWL time deliverable.
20:11:15 <ahaller2> ... requirement commonly used in sensor network use cases
20:11:31 <ChrisLittle> Q+
20:11:32 <ahaller2> ... vocabulary for a valid time is in scope for our work
20:11:38 <SimonCox> Concern is opening Pandora's box. Start with one predicate, how many more do we tackle?
20:11:42 <frans>  PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time only.
20:11:43 <ChrisLittle> q+
20:11:47 <eparsons> ack next
20:11:48 <joshlieberman> "Valid" predicates also need to accommodate OWLtime as range.
20:11:58 <SimonCox> And
20:12:04 <SimonCox> "valid for what?"
20:12:33 <joshlieberman> Predicates expressing valid time of a subject
20:12:58 <KJanowicz> +1
20:13:20 <ahaller2> ChrisLittle: siding with kerry. It should be in scope. In the context of Mobile things, time recording is important.
20:13:47 <SimonCox> (I'm pushing back to ensure clarity in requirements)
20:13:54 <ahaller2> eparsons: Are you happy with frans rephrasing?
20:14:02 <ahaller2> ChrisLittle: Yes
20:14:15 <LarsG> q+
20:14:23 <eparsons> ack next
20:14:47 <ahaller2> kerry: I am unhappy with this, because if we say it is out of scope here, we may have problem to put it in for OWL time.
20:15:04 <joshlieberman> +1 to Lars
20:15:07 <SimonCox> +1 to Larsg
20:15:08 <AndreaPerego> +1 to BP
20:15:13 <ahaller2> LarsG: I would rather say it is part of Best Practises
20:15:17 <ChrisLittle> +1 to lars
20:15:29 <KJanowicz> IMHO, valid time is often important to scope spatial phenomena and thus in scope
20:16:05 <ChrisLittle> s/practises/practices/
20:16:05 <ahaller2> +1 for being in scope for OWL time
20:16:32 <kerry> I think it should be considered as part of the owl-time work package -- while the solution may be delivered thru BP. So this is fine for me
20:17:18 <KJanowicz> q+
20:17:23 <ahaller2> SimonCox: OWL time at the moment is very clean. Nothing in OWL time that relates description of time to something else.
20:17:40 <eparsons> ack next
20:17:45 <ahaller2> ... are we opening pandoras box if we introduced a valid time predicate
20:18:21 <ahaller2> ... in the OGC we ended up with three time predicates as first class citizens in the work
20:18:58 <KJanowicz> Agreed, but data usage has changed and time is really key for space now
20:19:55 <SimonCox> @Jano - the issue is whether a 'valid time' predicate should be part of OWL-Time - which other wise is only concerned with the description of time geometry/topology and not the way it is coonnected to things.
20:20:10 <ahaller2> KJanowicz: more important to temporal scope boundaries. For example, Crimea, when did the border change, or not
20:20:19 <SimonCox> Valid time is certainly of interest to the BP
20:20:30 <KJanowicz> q-
20:20:41 <ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon's concern over n predicates
20:20:57 <ahaller2> q+
20:21:05 <eparsons> ack next
20:21:11 <SimonCox> @ahaller2 (three time predicates *on Observations* in OGC)
20:21:14 <KJanowicz> @SimonCox: I understand and probably you are right that it should not go into owl-time
20:21:50 <ChrisLittle> q+
20:21:51 <ahaller2> frans: strongly oppose that, we would open pandoras box to include it
20:22:08 <KJanowicz> I think it is a spatial problem.  In most cases whenever we say space we mean spacetime
20:22:16 <joshlieberman> q+
20:22:24 <kerry> q+
20:23:32 <SimonCox> +1 KJanowicz Valid time is a general problem, but with a clear 'geometric' behaviour.
20:23:58 <ahaller2> http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d3/d3.3/v0.1/#s312
20:24:32 <SimonCox> @ahaller2 +1 to modularization, to protect OWL-Time from specific predicates.
20:24:33 <eparsons> ack next
20:25:08 <ahaller2> ahaller2: valid time is important, but we may need to modularize the ontology and put such predicates in another ontology.
20:25:21 <ahaller2> ... see the complex time ontology in the wsmo time
20:25:53 <ahaller2> ChrisLittle: it is not in scope for the SDW working group. We probably find no one to champion it.
20:26:00 <eparsons> ack next
20:26:46 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:27:35 <eparsons> ack next
20:27:52 <ahaller2> joshlieberman: often we think that spatial data can be just data, but there is a commitment to a features in the real world and they change. Number of extremely complicated ways to do that. For me, a classic case for BP.
20:28:43 <KJanowicz> @ChrisLittle: I see your point but viewing space without time is really getting more and more uncommon. Think about administrative borders, trajectories, modern mereotopology, and so forth.
20:29:01 <ahaller2> kerry: mechanism is not clear, but it is an example of an issue that we will go over again and again. It will be important in this working group, in SSN, in Coverage. The question is where do we deal with it?
20:29:15 <ahaller2> ... OWL Time is the right work package for it.
20:29:24 <ahaller2> ... tend to leave this question open for a bit longer
20:29:49 <LarsG> q+
20:29:54 <eparsons> ack next
20:29:56 <ahaller2> eparsons: are you ok with frans' proposal to rewrite
20:30:03 <ahaller2> kerry: yes, but leave it for later
20:30:08 <LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP
20:30:26 <ahaller2> LarsG: proposes a rephrase
20:31:19 <ahaller2> frans: work packages are not defined yet, are we distinguishing them from deliverables :-)
20:31:38 <ahaller2> eparsons: we need to record the requirement not how it is met, yet
20:31:39 <SimonCox> (Maybe second deliverable re Time could be a method for registering predicates?)
20:33:06 <ahaller2> eparsons: are you ok with LarsG's proposal?
20:33:24 <ahaller2> frans: yes, but we talked about work packages suddenly
20:33:43 <kerry> nb: where it is delivered is NOT in the Requirment under lars proposal -- just where the issue goes!
20:33:56 <ahaller2> ... editors/group will have an enormous amount of liberty in interpreting requirements anyway
20:34:17 <ahaller2> +1 LarsG rephrase
20:35:00 <ahaller2> frans: it is to make editors aware of requirements
20:35:01 <KJanowicz> My feeling is that if we exclude this too early, we will have to revisit it later on
20:35:22 <kerry> +q
20:35:30 <eparsons> ack next
20:36:03 <ChrisLittle> +1 no URI therefore does not matter! ;)
20:36:05 <ahaller2> kerry: it is a clear requirement, but we are too careful about the phrasing at the moment.
20:36:28 <ahaller2> ... at the end, if we address the requirement later, it may go back into the UCR
20:36:45 <joshlieberman> Time "usage" Req. 26 - BP, Req. 22 - OWLtime, Req. 24 - SSN, so it occurs all over.
20:36:49 <ahaller2> ... larsG's proposal does not prescribe where it goes to
20:36:55 <LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP
20:37:04 <kerry> +1
20:37:07 <ahaller2> +1
20:37:09 <billroberts> +1
20:37:10 <Linda> +1
20:37:10 <frans> +1
20:37:11 <KJanowicz> +1
20:37:11 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:37:14 <MattPerry> +1
20:37:15 <joshlieberman> +1 to getting on...
20:37:15 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
20:37:20 <ChrisLittle> 0
20:37:27 <SimonCox> +1 is valid requirement
20:37:29 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:37:40 <eparsons> Resolved :  rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP
20:37:45 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+ to talk about Action-97 at end of UCR discussion
20:37:46 <frans> I will try to add a note to give the extra context
20:37:52 <eparsons> ack next
20:37:53 <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to talk about Action-97 at end of UCR discussion
20:38:00 <ahaller2> eparsons: let's move on
20:38:19 <kerry> q+ to talk on action-21
20:38:24 <eparsons> ack next
20:38:25 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to talk on action-21
20:38:38 <ahaller2> kerry: did some work on ACTION 21
20:39:06 <ahaller2> ... looked at the old SSN use cases
20:39:24 <ahaller2> ... we may need to revisit them if there is something there which we missed
20:39:36 <eparsons> Topic : BP Progress Follow Up
20:39:59 <frans> I will look at the results of action-21 within the next couple of days.
20:40:24 <ahaller2> Linda: commit the group to some more actions, get feedback
20:40:31 <ahaller2> ... ACTION 94
20:40:37 <ChrisLittl> ChrisLittl has joined #sdw
20:40:52 <ahaller2> ... make links within a dataset ???
20:41:20 <Linda> discoverable
20:41:29 <ChrisLittl> present+
20:41:31 <Linda> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/97
20:41:31 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:41:43 <ahaller2> s/???/discoverable
20:42:26 <ahaller2> BartvanLeeuwen: I was previously talking about a different issue, ACTION 97
20:42:42 <ahaller2> ... i wanted to show a demo
20:42:53 <ahaller2> ... probably by the end of the month
20:43:24 <ahaller2> Linda: ISSUE 96 on billroberts
20:44:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> I was talking with about ACTION-85, which first has a UCR its connected to the product
20:44:02 <ahaller2> billroberts: related to section 7.2 in best practise
20:44:31 <ahaller2> ... will work on it this weekend
20:45:16 <ahaller2> Linda: ACTION 97 and 98, but the authors are not on the call
20:45:21 <billroberts> so name of action 96 is a duplicate with action 94, but I think action 96 was intended to related to the line of BP section 7.2 that says "it's useful to have hyperlinks to things like Geonames, wikipedia, OSM etc (see list on the mailiing list, keyword: stamp collecting)"
20:46:21 <ahaller2> Linda: engage the group with new task: 1) compile list of common formats in use in spatial data, 2) compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
20:46:27 <ahaller2> ... any volunteers?
20:46:54 <frans> I found out it is not possible to define unassigned actions
20:46:59 <ahaller2> eparsons: for 1) geometries or more?
20:47:25 <billroberts> I'll volunteer for (2) compile list of geospatial vocabs
20:47:30 <KJanowicz> Does "compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF" mean a list of vocabularies/ontologies on spatial data for RDF/Linked data applications?
20:47:37 <frans> Yes, HTML could be a format for spatial data
20:47:38 <KJanowicz> I vould volunteer for 2
20:48:32 <ahaller2> eparsons: I volunteer for 1)
20:49:05 <billroberts> happy to collaborate with KJanowicz on item 2 - I suppose action should be assigned to one of us but we can agree to coordinate
20:49:09 <KJanowicz> s/vould/would
20:49:40 <KJanowicz> @billroberts sounds good to me
20:49:59 <eparsons> Action : KJanowicz & billroberts to create list of Spatial RDF vocabs
20:49:59 <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:50:01 <Linda> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
20:50:02 <ahaller2> ACTION: eparsons to Compile a list of common formats in use in spatial data
20:50:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Compile a list of common formats in use in spatial data [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-11-25].
20:50:42 <ahaller2> ACTION: billroberts and KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
20:50:42 <trackbot> Error finding 'billroberts'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:51:08 <ahaller2> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
20:51:08 <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:52:05 <eparsons> present+ billroberts
20:52:13 <ahaller2> ACTION: billroberts to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
20:52:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in rdf [on Bill Roberts - due 2015-11-25].
20:52:16 <kerry> action; linda to create an email thread around introduction to best practice
20:52:25 <KJanowicz> ahaller2: you may have to use full names
20:52:33 <kerry> action:  linda to create an email thread around introduction to best practice
20:52:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Create an email thread around introduction to best practice [on Linda van den Brink - due 2015-11-25].
20:52:38 <ahaller2> Linda: face to face meeting next week
20:53:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+ to ask about GeoKnow liason regarding BP ( again at the end of BP discussion )
20:53:02 <joshlieberman> There will also be a briefing and discussion on SDWWG at the Sydney TC...
20:53:04 <eparsons> q?
20:53:09 <ahaller2> ... Friday 26th of November, so it would be good if all actions are actioned by them and put in the document
20:53:49 <KJanowicz> ahaller2 can you add me to action 101
20:54:38 <KJanowicz> yes, I am following their work closely
20:55:11 <ahaller2> frans: in the Semantics conference in Vienna I presented the work in this group
20:55:24 <ahaller2> ... and GeoKnow was there
20:56:07 <joshlieberman> OGC TC Geosemantics session will be 30 November, 15:45 AEST. Accessible by GoToMeeting.
20:56:07 <KJanowicz> to jens lehmann
20:56:58 <ahaller2> eparsons: warm up the editors that the SSN deliverables is starting in the next week
20:57:13 <KJanowicz> present+ KJanowicz
20:57:19 <ahaller2> ... we need to think about the F2F meeting in the new year
20:57:47 <kerry> +q
20:57:49 <ahaller2> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
20:57:49 <trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:57:56 <eparsons> ack next
20:57:57 <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to ask about GeoKnow liason regarding BP ( again at the end of BP discussion )
20:58:06 <eparsons> ack next
20:58:54 <ahaller2> kerry: we planned to start working on Time, but the editors could not prepare yet for it
20:59:22 <ahaller2> ... four editors, kerry, ahalller2, KJanowicz and Danh Le Puoc
20:59:42 <ahaller2> s/puoc/phuoc
20:59:45 <KJanowicz> the editors are for SSN
20:59:50 <AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye.
20:59:50 <KJanowicz> bye bye
20:59:51 <billroberts> thanks, bye
20:59:52 <joshlieberman> bye
20:59:53 <ahaller2> eparsons: that finishes the meeting
20:59:53 <ChrisLittl> bye
20:59:54 <LarsG> thanks, bye
20:59:54 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has left #sdw
20:59:55 <frans> thanks & bye
21:00:02 <ahaller2> bye
21:00:07 <kerry> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:00:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html kerry
21:00:08 <eparsons> thanks ahaller2 scribe to the satrs
21:00:14 <ahaller2> ACTION: Krzysztof Janowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
21:00:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Janowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in rdf [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2015-11-25].
21:00:22 <kerry> rrsagent, make logs public
21:00:42 <kerry> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:00:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html kerry
21:02:04 <kerry> s/hose/houses/
21:02:16 <BartvanLeeuwen> kerry, no problem just to make sure you got it
21:10:01 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
21:46:02 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
22:02:44 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
22:16:02 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
23:07:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw