Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<Payam> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/WebEx

I can give it a try

<billroberts> fetches glass of wine - been one of those days

yes

<kerry_> scribe: KJanowicz

<jtandy> scribenick: KJanowicz

<kerry_> scribeNick: KJ

<kerry_> http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html

<kerry_> +1

<jtandy> +1 ... (wasn't at the meeting - but they made sense to me)

<Payam> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<Linda> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

<ClemensPortele> +0 (wasn't there)

<ChrisLittle> +1 minutes

RESOLUTION: Minutes have been approved

<billroberts> +1

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

<KJanowicz> kerry_ : next item on agenda: patent call

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<KJanowicz> next item on the agenda: BP Editors' F2F

BP Editors call

<ChrisLittle> * if lunch Iranian very awesome

<KJanowicz> BP will be written in a tutorial style

<kerry_> +1 to on line help style

<KJanowicz> BP document will crossreference other best practice documents

<KJanowicz> This will create a common document that links to other relevant materials thus making them accessible at a common place.

<KJanowicz> Examples will be included in a second stage

<KJanowicz> kerry_ : Plan was to release first draft on Dec. 10th

<jtandy> (or 9-Dec for those of us in EU and USA)

<KJanowicz> next meeting is the last one to go over open issues

<KJanowicz> same for the use case document

<KJanowicz> ChrisLittle: How do we define a quorum in our case?

<KJanowicz> kerry_: key issue is not to exclude anybody

<KJanowicz> We need to check this with the OGC and their procedures

<jtandy> ACTION: ChrisLittle to determine the rules for OGC quorum [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Determine the rules for ogc quorum [on Chris Little - due 2015-12-02].

review BP actions

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/94

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/96

<KJanowicz> Linking out to some common sources such as DBpedia, GeoNames, etc. This leads to interesting challenges, e.g., entity resolution.

<KJanowicz> Semantics of links is important but not always clear.

<KJanowicz> Combination of owl:sameAs, seeAlso, and various SKOS links.

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/97

<KJanowicz> First notes will be published by Nov 26th

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/98

<KJanowicz> ClemensPortele: Working on list of common formats, looked at BP task, this will need additional text but so far we will consider about 10 formats and make sure to come up with a list of characteristics that are relevant for our group. Table of characteristics was distributed today.

<KJanowicz> ClemensPortele: We already see discussions on the mailinglist but we still need to agree on the direction this is going.

<KJanowicz> The preferred format will depend heavily on your home community (e.g., GML for OGC). Thus we need to link the format overview to the BP and use cases. This will allow us to recommend formats for specific needs and communities.

<KJanowicz> A more meta question, how should we edit this? On the wiki, using github?

<KJanowicz> KJanowicz would recommend to use the W3 wiki.

<jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to provide ClemensPortele a list of further attributes required to describe each data format (relates to ACTION 98) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Provide clemensportele a list of further attributes required to describe each data format (relates to action 98) [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-12-02].

<ChrisLittle> +1 to wiki

<KJanowicz> +1 for wiki

<ChrisLittle> Copy and paste, not cut!

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/99

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/100

<KJanowicz> ClemensPortele: What is the relationship between actions 100 and 98?

<KJanowicz> answer: data encoding formats versus rdf vocabularies

<KJanowicz> KJanowicz: I think we are already talking about action 101/103

<jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to deconflict actions 98 (clemens and 100 (ed) - they both seem to be about formats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Deconflict actions 98 (clemens and 100 (ed) - they both seem to be about formats [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-12-02].

<KJanowicz> jtandy, we have the same on 101 and 103

<billroberts> perhaps, as KJ has just pointed out, this is a result of where we allocated an action to 2 people - the tracker may have issued two identical actions, because only one action per person?

<KJanowicz> @billroberts: yes, this is exactly the issue

<Linda> yes, at least it seems something went wrong with allocating actions.

<ClemensPortele> @billroberts: I am not sure, 98 was created two weeks ago and 100 was created last week

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/101 and http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/103

<KJanowicz> rdf vocabularies (not formats)

<KJanowicz> billroberts: task for 101/103 will be more than just a list of vocabularies. The real value comes from recommendations.

<KJanowicz> jtandy: we need the recommendations to be durable but vocabularies come and go.

<KJanowicz> jtandy: thus we need a method to inform users about which criteria to use to select a particular vocabulary.

<KJanowicz> +1

<KJanowicz> jtandy: we also need robust mappings

<KJanowicz> billroberts: I agree with this approach

<KJanowicz> billroberts: value in a crosswalk between different vocabularies

<KJanowicz> kerry_: let us move on to SSN

<KJanowicz> I am okay with what bill said.

<billroberts> Kerry was right. Jeremy talked a lot

SSN kickoff

<KJanowicz> kerry_: SSN editors will be ahaller2, kerry_, DanhLePhuoc, KJanowicz

<KJanowicz> I can speak about the usage

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Bill

<kerry_> kJ: Usage of SSN

<kerry_> ....looked at papers using ssn

<kerry_> ............describing sensors, observations and deployments

<kerry_> ...not much linked data

<kerry_> .... 2-3 years IoT is big uptake

<kerry_> ...reference to <missed it>

<kerry_> ... one third develop new ontologies based on SSN

<kerry_> ... sso part is widely used for extension

<kerry_> ...data integration and data infrastrucutre e.g. earthcube

<kerry_> ... accessibility, preservation, interoperability

<kerry_> .... provenance

<kerry_> ... academic use for the sake of ssn .e.g. aligning or ontology design

<kerry_> ...documenting on wiki

<ahaller2> +1 great summary KJanowicz

<KJanowicz> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_usage

<KJanowicz> will complete this later

<ChrisLittle> S/infrastrucutre/infrastructure/

<KJanowicz> I only looked at 10 papers per year so this is rather anecdotal at this stage.

<KJanowicz> kerry_: DUL needs to be discussed, O&M relation, more on location

<KJanowicz> kerry: more on encoding values

<KJanowicz> kerry_: modularization

<jtandy> devices and sensors : http://www.w3.org/2015/11/DeviceSensorsCharter.html

<KJanowicz> KJanowicz: important to keep in mind: SSN is the result of a W3C XG so the focus was heavily on experimental work and new methods . This time (for the SDW) we will focus on standardization so we will need to be more conservative.

<KJanowicz> kerry_: more discussion needed on the ontological issues as such and how it relates to the BP documents.

<KJanowicz> kerry_: we will report back to the geosemantics group at OGC (for their meeting in Sydney)

<ChrisLittle> Bye and thank you

<ahaller2> thanks, bye

<billroberts> ok thanks all - bye

<ClemensPortele> bye, thanks

<kerry_> rrsagent draft minutes

<kerry_> bye!

<kerry_> trackbot, end meeting