Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<eparsons> Evening all !

<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2016

<scribe> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160113

<scribe> scribe: phila

Preliminaries

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes.html

<RaulGarciaCastro> Hi, which is the meeting password for WebEx?

<frans> +1

<jtandy> v4qtEh56

<kerry> +1

<jtandy> ... is the password

<eparsons> +1 for minutes

<jtandy> +1

+1

<ClemensPortele> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-sdw-minutes

<Linda> +0 was absent

<RaulGarciaCastro> thanks jtandy

Patent Call https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Best Practice: Resolve to publish FPWD

-> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Editors' Draft of the BP Doc

kerry: Invites editors to introduce the topic

jtandy: happy to introduce the topic
... Since creating last week's more or less stable version.
... I;ve had comments from people who have read the doc from end to end.
... I am still processing Rachel's comments, plus Clemens, Frans and Bill
... Last week we talked about getting a better connection between the BP doc and the charter
... You'll see in section 3 that there are now references to the charter
... What I've been doing mostly... If I;ve had a suggestion for a literal change, I've almost always just taken that nad used it.
... Where people have raised more of a question, I have raised an issue
... each issue is linked to the issue discussion in GH
... discussion is all in GH, we can make a resolutiona nd close it with a Pull request
... Readers will see that this work isn't finshed yet.
... Suggsted changes have been focussed on making thre wording correct, cf. large changes
... A couple of changes, eg one from Ed, re Geospatisl custodian cf. expert
... that would ripple throuhg the doc so I haven't made that change
... Rachel suggests that the BP on sensor data flows isn't really in scope.
... A quick read through Clemens' comments suggest that some of our BPs don't have a particular spatial theme.
... Whetehr we want to make those changes ahead of FPWD is up to the WG.

<frans> I think the thoroughness of processing the commments is impressive. Well done!

jtandy: Most comments seem to suggest that we are in a good place for a FPWD.
... Any particular things you want me to bring out ahead of the vote, chairs?

kerry: I'd like to respond to your way of handling the comments coming in late.
... What to do about those issues that are outstanding - none of them seem very substantive
... I'd like to resolve that we accept the doc as it is, recognising that there is more to do, which the doc does
... So I'd like to vote on the doc in its current form without any conditions

Linda: Nothing from me, pls go ahead

Payam: Or me

eparsons: I agree with kerry. Those comments are in the doc
... So I'm happy with the doc as it is. It's the FPWD so the expectation is that there will be a list of issues.

jtandy: I did manage to close an issue (and open 40
... You said that we don't need to resolve the issues before we publish the FPWD
... I think kerry was saying that she doesn't need to see the comments still being worked on before we vote.

eparsons: I think we're voting on the doc as it is now, without the last minute editorial changes

<SimonCox> After all its just a First Working Draft!

jtandy: It may be that I can make those non-substantive changes before we vote

billroberts: I don't think my edits are substantive, so I'm OK with it as it stands

<kerry> ack

billroberts: I don't think it makes much odds whether it's included before or after FPWD

phila: Asks for clarity on whether comments currently in hand will be made before or after FPWD

jtandy: Is asking the WG to decide that

<ClemensPortele> I am ok both ways, i.e. I have no problems with processing my comments after the FPWD!

kerry: Everyone so far has said publish as it is now

eparsons: That's my understanding too. We need to vote on it as it is now, even if changes are made in an hour's time

<frans> Very well to publish the doc as it is. Main thing is the issues are recorded.

<AndreaPerego> +1

ScottSimmons: No comments from me, I'm ready to publish too.

<ScottSimmons> +1

jtandy: I think the doc shows where we're going. I recognise that there is still a long way from where we are now to a useful guide, but as a first draft, it's OK

kerry: Any more comments? Editors?

Linda: I agree with jtandy. Still a lot of work to do before it becomes useful, but as it is, it shows what we want to write down.

<frans> To the editors: do let the other members do some work too.

<jtandy> [we hope to be able to talk to real practitioners at the F2F meeting in the Nederlands next month]

Linda: And I'd like to thank all the people who have reviewed the doc in the last week. V helpful

PROPOSED: That the BP document at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published as it is now as a W3C FPWD/OGC discussion paper

<SimonCox> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

<jtandy> +1

<frans> +1

<eparsons> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<LarsG> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Payam> +1

<Linda> +1

<billroberts> +1

<kerry> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<robin_> +1

RESOLUTION: That the BP document at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published as it is now as a W3C FPWD/OGC discussion paper

<eparsons> Thx Eds !!!!

PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to the editors

+1

<LarsG> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<kerry> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

<billroberts> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<frans> +3

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to the editors

<SimonCox> U+1F44F/U+E41F

<kerry> scott: we should do a press release for public comment?

<SimonCox> (Emoji for round of applause)

<kerry> phila: on home page, not a press releease

<kerry> scott: will put on our home page too -- talk furter about more publicity

<kerry> phila: no more edits today -- can you make a snapshot so I know I have the right one please?

<kerry> jtandy: will do

<kerry> phila: will not yet be linked; will send link to scott

<frans> Is it possible for the public to post the same comments that we already have? If yes, should we prevent that?

eparsons: I think we need to communicate that this is a work in progress.
... we need to make it clear that this isn't finished, it's some way away from where we're heading
... So we need to set expectations

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask one more thing

phila: Are you all OK with /TR/sdw-bp as the short URI

<jtandy> is ok with me

<kerry> +1

<Linda> +1

<eparsons> +1

<frans> Would Eds remark constitute a change in the doc?

<Payam> +1

<LarsG> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<kerry> phila: how do we track comments:

phila: How did you track comments in CSVW

<kerry> jtandy: use the email list and create a github issue to track dialogue

<kerry> jtandy: repond to wg email list when closed through the github tracker

jtandy: We ask people to write to the public list. We say we've created the GH issue and link to it. We then ask commentator to indicate to the public list that they are happy with the resolution.
... Content, not necessarily happy

<frans> Will there be a link to the github issues in the heading of the document?

<kerry> phila: what about ogc members -- would they be left out?

ScottSimmons: It would be easier if we disuaded people from using our comment system. If they do, I'll monitor and push them to your system

kerry: Any more to say?

<kerry> F2F meeting Netherlands 8-10 February https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam

F2F meeting Netherlands 8-10 February https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam

kerry: We have brought this to people's attention but we haven't discussed it here.
... The dates are 8-10 Feb. The wiki shows a small list of people planning to attend. If you haven't done so, please record your intention to participate
... Let's open up the discussion about what to discuss there?

Linda: First off - the first 2 days, 8-9, are regular WG meetings and the third day is a conference of the Platform Linked Data Nederland
... They will all be in the conference, plus so EU projects and EuroSDR
... WE have a short session in the plenary discussion what we're doing and there's a session in the afternoon when people can discuss what we're doing
... So we should discuss what we do in the afternoon on Wednesday and what we do in the Wg meeting

kerry: Let's do the last first.

<jtandy> my suggestions were:

<jtandy> find out what problems make it difficult for them to publish spatial data

<jtandy> seek confirmation that the best practices we are curating are appropriate

<jtandy> ask for pointers to real examples 'in the wild' that we can reference

<jtandy> ask how the SDW BP can be made [more] useful to practitioners; what do they need, how should it be organised etc.

Linda: I discussed it a little with Jeremy. In the plenary meeting we should use our time to introduce our work

-> http://www.pilod.nl/wiki/Geodata_on_The_Web_Event_10_February_2016 Event URL (EN)

<eparsons> +1 for focus on BP

<AndreaPerego> +1 also from me

Linda: Also in the larger session, I'd like a focus on the BPs. As a BP editor of course I'd like that. We need to find out what problems people have with publishing spatial data. are our BPs useful?
... Real examples would be useful
... Anything they think is useful input to our work
... I've talked before about the Geonovum test bed. I'm hoping a lot of the participants in the test bed will be there

phila: It sounds as if some questions might lead to more use cases - are we open to that?

Linda: If we have new ones with new requirements, that would be interesting. We don't want to be buried by new work but we don't want to miss important stuff
... It's pointers to examples of work done we're after

eparsons: It's good timing. We can test how well the structure works, are we helping. A lot of the audience there will bou our intended audience, people who have invested in SDIs now looking at LD now
... If there are changes to be made, it's the perfect timing

kerry: BP editors - would it be appropriate to pick on some issues that we're having trouble with and highlight them?
... maybe you won't know what those are until we ask

jtandy: Rather than identify things upfront, we could perhaps do a straw poll and see what is most useful

kerry: So are you happy to do it at the F2F which means they're not on the programme?
... Open comments on the doc can be solicited.

frans: Would it be an idea to have a demo at the F2F?
... a demo of a model publication of a small sample dataset?
... The Bp doc will contain examples, perhaps we could have a real working example in the doc.
... Such a model dataset could be a centre of discussion?

jtandy: The meeting is less than 4 weeks away. I wouldn't be able to contribute any time to creating demos and examples
... One of the things I hope to achieve in the first couple fo days woujld be to bring examples with them so that we can collect evidence of where these Bps are being used in the wild
... Which might tie in with what you're saying, frans. BP16: here is is being used/followed.

Linda: I think the test bed people will have something to show

kerry: SO it won't be toally theoretical

<AndreaPerego> In case, the GeoDCAT-AP API could be used for a demo on publishing geo metadata as RDF / on the Web: http://geodcat-ap.semic.eu:8890/api/

Linda: No.
... Is everyone OK with dedicating the third day to BP entirely?

kerry: There may be use cases but for me, yes

<jtandy> +1

<frans> maybe just introduce the time, sensor and coverage topics?

billroberts: On the third day, yes, focus on the BPs
... and I agree with Frans that we should introduce the others
... I've (been) volunteered to edit the Coverages one and being in the room with people who have done deliverables before will be very valuable

kerry: So moving on to the first 2 days.
... I would expect at least half a day on BP, and half a day on Time.
... ANd I'm keen to spend as much as a full day on SSN
... But Bill you're obviously keen to talk about it so we should try and do a bit of everything
... Which is why it's important to know who will be there/online
... As an aside, I'm hoping to look at SSN next week on this call
... Sound OK?

eparsons: I agree with that. It will be so dependent on who is there. From the list we have now we could clearly spend all the time on BPs, but if we're to look at others, we'll need to manage the people/groups who will be there.

<AndreaPerego> I would suggest: 1 day on BP, half day on Time and half day on SSN

eparsons: We need to get ourselves together and work out the agenda before hand, knowing who will be there and when.
... The danger is spending all our time doing Bp work.

<kerry> ACTION: kerry to coordinate ssn editors slot at meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Coordinate ssn editors slot at meeting [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-01-20].

<scribe> ACTION: kerry To coordinate the SSN group in terms of what is planned for the F2F meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Coordinate the ssn group in terms of what is planned for the f2f meeting [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-01-20].

jtandy: We could talk about BP for 2 days but it might be less than communitaire
... My preference would be to look at real world examples for BP
... Looking to Linda and Payam to say yay or nay to focussing on examples

<frans> A general discussion could be about how we can encourage collaboration with people and communities outside our WG

Payam: I agree - we don't have many examples now and we need them
... They'd be very helpful

Linda: +1

kerry: Can I remind you to remind us to bring your examples

phila: Thinks it sounds like 'Show and Tell'

kerry: I think the BP editors will be there for the whole meeting
... So I'll ask the BP editors to coordinate, as they'll be most flexible. Between half and a full day.

jtandy: OK, yep

billroberts: Something like an hour in the schedule would prob be enough for me/Coverages
... So I'd welcome geospatial help. I'm more LD-centric

jtandy: It might be worth you catching up with Jon Blower and Maik Reichert from Reading university

<jtandy> https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre

jtandy: Both of them have extensive knowlegde of spatial

billroberts: I know Jon a little

phila: +1

<SimonCox> Is there anyone with a primary interest in time-series involved in the coverages activity?

<AndreaPerego> s/knowlegdeknowlegde/knowledge/

kerry: I have some mechanisms to contribute

<jtandy> @SimonCox ... not that I know of

SimonCox: I think Jon might be interested in time series. I'm worried that it'll all be classic remote sensing

kerry: Those people on the OGC time series work might be interested. Someone from GA?

SimonCox: John Lowe etc.?

<eparsons> Calling time...

<kerry> s/john/Dom/

<frans> s/peopel/people/

<SimonCox> *Dom* Lowe

<billroberts> it's easier for me to get to Amersfoort than it is to get to Harwich!

<frans> With luck we will have ice ready for skating

<SimonCox> (East Anglian dude)

kerry: We didn't really address how to cover time at the meeting but I'll write mail on that.

<eparsons> thanks all - bye

<jtandy> bye

<kJanowicz> bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye

<billroberts> thanks - bye

<ahaller2> bye

<robin_> bye

<ClemensPortele> bye

<RaulGarciaCastro> bye

<LarsG> thanks, bye

<Payam> bye