Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<kerry> chair: kerry

<BartvanLeeuwen> -1

<phila> scribe: LarsG

<phila> scribeNick: LarsG

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes

<jtandy> +1

<kerry> +1

<Linda> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

approve last week's minutes

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes

<Payam> +1

<frans> +0 (was not present)

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<MattPerry> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

patent call

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Use Cases and Requirements Note: resolve to publish 2nd public working draft

Bart: is the Swiss topographical survey in our WG?

phila: not to my knowledge

<jtandy> I don't know anyone from swisstopo participating either

BartvanLeeuwen: They have much content and should be aware of what we do
... just want to make sure they aren't already

phila: don't know if they are OGC members, I know they're not W3C members

kerry: we want to publish 2 PWD of UCR

<phila> UCR Snapshot

frans: the document is ready, phila did some cleanup of broken links
... but it's ready for publication

kerry: we can vote on that

frans: still some loose ends, document is not finished
... unresolved issues around, there might be new requirements
... all loose ends in the tracker
... assigns actions to other document editors
... the editors can then pass the actions on to others

kerry: well done

frans: using the tracker is a great help

Linda: What is the difference to the current WD?

frans: minor details, some issues were resolved. FPWD published in summer

<phila> And 2 new UCs

frans: did some rephrasing, fixing errors etc.

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if we can put a diff section in

jtandy: in previous work I was involved in there was a diff section in the documents. Don't see this in the UCR document. Is that needed?

phila: no, it's not necessary

jtandy: but it's easy with a good diff tool
... does respec do that?

phila: don't know

frans: if we list all changes it will be a large boring document. It could be assigned as an action so someone

<phila> The diff between the two

jtandy: previously we have done an external diff document with all changes

phila: there is a diff available (through the diff tool). Is that enough?

<Linda> Looks good to me

<jtandy> yes- I think that's sufficient for a diff

phila: Talked to OGC about their publication process. Minimum period is eight days, so we must get the OGC process going today.

<kerry> +1 to diff as Phil linked

phila: OGC can vote before we do. Has sent a snapshot of the document to them so that they can kick off their process
... there is no need to hold up their process

joshlieberman: has posted the PDF on the OGC portal and initiated a poll

<jtandy> [aside: generating diffs automatically ... see https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/publishing_process.md for what we did on CSVW ... steps 6 & 7 are relevant]

<frans> About the diff tool: do we want to have a link to the document marked with changes in the documents that we will publish next?

joshlieberman: saying that we need to start the vote this evening. Passes it on to Scott

kerry: so if we vote tonight we can have it formally published before Christmas
... Do we need to update the snapshot to include the diff?

joshlieberman: we should mention that there are two more UCs and a new requirement. Don't know if we need more details

<frans> Could we decide to add the diff info in next publications?

phila: we can say that we accept it for publication iff the diff is added

joshlieberman: there is an automated process in the OGC
... so the new version is OGC r1

<jtandy> [see CSVW PR (http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html) that shows "Diff to previous version" (automatically generated) and the editorial list of notable changes at Appendix E Changes from previous drafts http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html#changes]

joshlieberman: but that is not a substantive change

jtandy: CSVW have a diff-to-previous-versoin section created by the diff tool, probably using respec

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/diff.html

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/publishing-snapshots/PR-metadata/Overview.html#changes

<jtandy> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/commits/gh-pages

jtandy: the document also has an editorial section listing major changes. We can also link to the commit history
... on github. so it shouldn't be difficult to add that

<joshlieberman> Summary: 2 new use cases (Provenance of climate data, representing geospatial data in RDF), 1 new requirement (update datatypes in OWL Time), Accepted requirements by deliverable, Deferred requirements.

frans: if W3C and OGC don't mind an additional change it's OK. Can see the usefulness of the diff.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make an offer

joshlieberman: some requirements shifted their numbers but that should be OK

<jtandy> [ jtandy noticed the change in REQ numbering too ]

phila: changing numbers shouldn't be a problem since we use textual links anyway
... adding the diff should be fine

<frans> the id tags are fixed, the numbers are flexible. To refer to use cases or requirements please use the iss (fragment identifiers)

phila: asks frans to write a brief summary and phila can add it to the document

<phila> ACTION: frans to write short textual summary of changes since FPWD of the UCR doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Write short textual summary of changes since fpwd of the ucr doc [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-12-16].

<phila> ACTION: phila to add links to Diff and Commit history to UCR doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

joshlieberman: OGC is fine with that

<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Add links to diff and commit history to ucr doc [on Phil Archer - due 2015-12-16].

frans: is it possible to have a universal URI that points to the most recent version?

<phila> That's what http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/ is, frans

<joshlieberman> http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

phila: there is a process to create those short URIs. They point to the most recent published version.
... and there is a link to the editors' draft

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask @phila if he will update http://w3c.github.io/sdw/

<phila> ACTION: phila to update GH pages index etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Update gh pages index etc [on Phil Archer - due 2015-12-16].

Linda: there is no link to the draft from our wiki

<kerry> ACTION: kerry to ensure wiki has link to http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Ensure wiki has link to http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ [on Kerry Taylor - due 2015-12-16].

frans: if we change the link on the wiki to the short URI we have links to both the published and the current version

Linda: misses link to the current WD

kerry: will take care of that

<phila> PROPOSED: That the version of the UCR at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being complted by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated diff and GH commit history

<jtandy> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<phila> PROPOSED: That the version of the UCR at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being completed by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated diff and GH commit history. And that the OGC process is also concluded satisfactorily.

<jtandy> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

<frans> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<kerry> +1

<Linda> +1

+1

<Payam> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

RESOLUTION: That the version of the UCR at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/ be published as the next version, modulo actions being completed by Frans (editorial notes of changes since the last version) and Phil adding links to the mechanically-generated diff and GH commit history. And that the OGC process is also concluded satisfactorily.

<phila> Vote of thanks to the editors

<kerry> +1

<frans> thank you, could not have done it without all of you

<frans> bye Phil!

2. Best Practice: Revised timescales

jtandy: BP editors see that there is more work to do in order to have it review ready
... if editing is delayed to the end of next week (+10 days) editing could be finished
... then WG members can review until January 6
... and we can vote. This assumes that OGC vote is eight working days,
... then we can publish on January 19 or 20

Linda: wants to vote one week later

<AndreaPerego> +1 to vote on Jan, 13th.

kerry: it's fine to vote on Jan 13
... holiday time everywhere

<ahaller2> +1 for 13 Jan

<jtandy> PROPOSED: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ... we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016

<joshlieberman> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

+1

<Linda> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<frans> +1

<Payam> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

RESOLUTION: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ... we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016

RESOLUTION: delay vote to release BP FPWD until Jan 13 2016 ... we will present the ed draft on Jan 6 2016

Best Practice: ACTION-98 list/matrix of the common formats

<Linda> http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

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

<jtandy> [ Ed's table is here: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp ]

Linda: action is about common spatial formats and what you can do with them

<Linda> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_SpatialDataFormats

Linda: Ed has done one table and Clemens another one
... would like to merge those tables
... both have useful information

<jtandy> Column headers: Format Openness Binary/text Usage Discoverability Granular links CRS Support Verbosity Semantics vocbab? Streamable 3D Support

<jtandy> (in Ed's table)

Linda: Clemens's table is more detailed
... is worried about including both general and specific properties when merging

frans: depends on the purpose of the table
... do editors have a clear vision of that?
... e. g. webiness of formats or also stand-alone GIS software formats
... what is the purpose?

Linda: Purpose is to help people to choose a format for publishing on the web, so webiness is a criterion

ClemensPortele: agrees that webiness is a factor but shouldn't be the only one

<joshlieberman> Second purpose could be to help people to transform existing data to a webbier format...then we need to reference existing data formats.

ClemensPortele: it's better to have the data out as a shape file if the alternative is to have no data at all
... how much guidance do we want to give?
... multiple geometries etc.
... tries to stick to objective measures
... looking at link support, semantic requirements
... knows that the list is long and might be hard to understand for non-geoexperts
... Ed's classification is a bit subjective (verbosity)

<jtandy> [ agree that Ed's classifications are subjective ]

ClemensPortele: to we want to include soft critera, too?

kerry: likes Ed's table, key best practices
... otoh there are people who recognise the value of the number of attributes listed
... both tables have a purpose, do we have room to do both?

<jtandy> [ thinks that the multiple user aspect might work ... ]

kerry: one table with the most common ones (casual) and one as a deeper reference

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask the WG what they would look for regarding guidance of format choice

kerry: has a preference for that

jtandy: ... asking the WG to help the editors by saying what kind of table they would prefer (what would be helpful to pick a format)

<joshlieberman> Ed's criteria are good, just have to formalize them a bit.

<joshlieberman> e.g. what is "discoverable"?

<frans> I would like to see only one recommended format, not twenty formats for different purposes

<kerry> ACTION: andrea to comment on table content and format around ACTION-98 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Comment on table content and format around action-98 [on Andrea Perego - due 2015-12-16].

<kerry> ACTION: josh to Comment on table content and format around action-98 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

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

<joshlieberman> joshlieberman

<kerry> ACTION: joshlieberman to Comment on table content and format around action-98 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - to comment on table content and format around action-98 [on Joshua Lieberman - due 2015-12-16].

frans: we need a good definition of format
... some in the table are classic GIS formats, others are in the RDF/Web sphere (e. g. GeoJSON)

<KJanowicz> I would not consider neogeo a format

jtandy: we collate that information. There is an action for that

<KJanowicz> it is more like a vocabulary and this is action 101 and 103

jtandy: vocabularies are not formats

<joshlieberman> There are combinations of model, schema, and encoding...not just format.

jtandy: so there are two collections

<jtandy> that we've done some more updates to the BP doc too ... particularly note that Linda has finished BP 1 ... http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids

Best Practice: update on progress, any other issues

jtandy: work is underway

Reminder: Christmas Break (no meeting 23 & 30 December

kerry: last meeting 2015 is next week December 16

<KJanowicz> bye bye

<joshlieberman> Ta ta

kerry: then Christmas break until January 6

<frans> thank you. good day!

<ClemensPortele> bye

<MattPerry> \quit

Cheers

<joshlieberman> \quit

<kerry> ta ta from me!