Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

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

<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2016

<eparsons> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160127

<eparsons> chair: eparsons

<eparsons> Morning Kerry !!

<eparsons> Evening jtandy !

<lewismc> Hi Folks, it's Lewis here. Can someone provide me with the password for Webex?

<eparsons> both i have msg'd to you

<eparsons> only wenex audi issues ;-(

I can do it

<eparsons> scribe : KJanowicz

<frans> Thanks KJanowicz (I know it can be challenging to scribe)

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-sdw-minutes

<kerry> +1

<Linda> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

+1

<frans> +1

<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

<robin> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

<phila> +0 wasn't there

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

<ahaller2> +1

<eparsons> Topic : F2F meeting agenda

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_F2F3

<frans> I put two comments on the wiki

<phila> Attendee list for Amersfoort

<phila> Agenda for Amersfoort

Ed: first item of agenda today is looking at our F2F in the NL. much of the focus will be on BP and we have a fair amount of detail and understanding about this but how much do we have on SSN and how many SSN related people will we have there?

Frans discussing comments made about the agenda wrt use cases.

Kerry: need enough time to discuss the coverage topic.
... not sure how deep we can get into the Time deliverable

<ClausStadler> >> And you ClausStadler - do you know if you're going to come yet? - Unfortunately not yet, will sort it out until beginning of next week - will update the wiki then as well.

Ed: entire afternoon on first day for BP and maybe Tuesday in the morning. not clear how many people we have for Coverage and Time.

Kerry: SSN folks will mostly join by telcon so we need to keep this in the afternoon.

phila: End of February we will invest more time for the Coverage deliverable. It will be a very small topic at the F2F.

kerry: can we move the Coverage topic to the afternoon of the second day?

<eparsons> Topic : BP Issue - RDF bias, what is it and how do we deal with it...

Ed: do we accept the fact that we are biased towards RDF?

<jtandy> see ISSUE 225 at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225

Linda: Useful topic to address. We established as a group that we want to promote Linked Data so yes maybe we are RDF biased but it should not be our only solution in the BP. We should also point to other solutions.

+1

<SimonCox> Is there an alternative to 'linked data'?

<joshli> Do we have any other "accessible" means of defining semantics and representing it?

ClemensPortele: it really sounds like you have to use RDF and the entire Semantic Web layer cake to follow BP. do we want that?
... we need to be more open.

<jtandy> note that JSON-LD is designed to allow web developers to do great things with information without needing to use _any_ RDF machinery

<phila> KJanowicz: I agree with the general sentiment but we couldn't try to solve all the problems at once

<jtandy> see manu sporny's comments on JSON-LD and RDF here: http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ ... "Decision 3: Kick RDF in the Nuts"

<phila> ... We can't do SSN without the Sem Web Layer Cake for example

<phila> ... I can see the point, but our BPs are targeted towards that

Linked Data without RDF?

<eparsons> +1

<jtandy> quoting manu sporny again "I personally wanted JSON-LD to be compatible with RDF, but that’s about it."

<phila> +1 to giving little or no wiggle room on using URIs as identifiers

<aharth> +1 to frans: use HTTP URIs would be a good first step

<phila> +1 to talk about conneg and HAL

<joshli> If we don't use explicit semantics, e.g. with pdf, then the best practices will need to incorporate (and define) implicit semantics in recommended syntax.

jtandy: Use a Linked Data approach is what we want so, e.g., using HTTP but this does not mean that we need to focus merely on RDF.

<jtandy> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/

<AndreaPerego> +1 to HTTP URIs & conneg

<joshli> ^pdf^rdf !

KJanowicz: so what is this telling us about our own W3C standards?

<ClemensPortele> If "linked data approach" means using HTTP (incl. conneg) and URIs I am ok with that

Ed: we do not always need the full 5 Linked Data stars

<frans> I like RDF, but it can be overwhelming and we do not want to overwhelm our audience without just cause

<joshli> If we are working with data on the Web, then it needs to be clear that URI's are resolvable (i.e. also URL's).

<AndreaPerego> First we should go for 'webby data". LD is the next step.

AndreaPerego: plain Uris is already a clear improvement. so lets really start at the beginning.

<frans> RDF should certainly have a place in best practices about semantics

Ed: explain that there is a range of individual BP with increasing value as you move along.

<joshli> It would be useful, perhaps, to come up with best practices that represent different degrees of formalism.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about conneg and HAL

<phila> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#APIHttpVerbs

<phila> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#globally-unique-ids

phila: HTTP URIs is a wonderful first BP but this does not yet imply RDF. Content negotiation is greatly underused. You can get RDF, JSON, KML,...

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to remind people to type "present+ <name>" after this topic is finished

<jtandy> [paraphrasing my thoughts ... in each theme introduce people to increasing technological complexity; starting simple (e.g. KML or GML accessed via HTTP Get) and working toward 5* Linked Data ... avoid the perception that you have to start with RDF]

<phila> KJanowicz: Just to agree with what has been said. We're in a bit of a spot with our old WWW standards. There's a long tail. We need to talk about the linkage

<phila> ... How would you talk about the inferences? SSN?

<phila> ... We can say at the beginning of hte doc that HTTP is basic and you can work your way to more complex things.

<jtandy> +1 to KJanowicz ... describe in the introduction that you begin with a simple approach of HTTP URIs and HTTP Get ... and then move onto describing how links [should] work etc.

<joshli> There is not necessarily conflict between "well-known" semantics, a link to a narrative, and a set of triples that define formal semantics, but it is most useful to have all of those available.

ClemensPortele: agree with KJanowicz. We need to provide more structure. All these ontologies will require the Semantic Web layer cake and so forth. That said, we should also look at other examples that aim more at Web developers.

<jtandy> +1 to ClemensPortele ... describe tools like Swagger that help web developers use the data

<eparsons> Topic : Outstanding Actions review

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/open

<phila> 'Overtaken by events' is a commonly used phrase when closing actions no one can remember

<SimonCox> Link to glossary on wiki?

jtandy: ACTION-25 we still all need to have a look on the glossary and continue working on this. Action remains open.

<SimonCox> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms

AndreaPerego: ACTION-48: It is covered in BP. Will do one more check and then it can be closed.

<phila> close action-48

<trackbot> Closed action-48.

eparsons: ACTION-57: in fact we received no comments from the ogc channels. We can close 57.

<phila> action-57?

<trackbot> action-57 -- Ed Parsons to Monitor ogc channels for feedback on the ucr draft once released as an ogc document -- due 2015-08-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/57

<eparsons> action-58

<trackbot> action-58 -- Kerry Taylor to Keep in contact with wot re actuation -- due 2015-07-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/58

<phila> close action-57

<trackbot> Closed action-57.

<eparsons> action-60

<trackbot> action-60 -- Kerry Taylor to Follow up with svg -- due 2015-08-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/60

kerry: action-58 is still ongoing.

<eparsons> close action-60

<trackbot> Closed action-60.

kerry: action-60 --> we need to keep going, lets close this one.

<eparsons> action-74

<trackbot> action-74 -- Andrea Perego to Ensure we are not missing entirely important user requirements -- due 2015-09-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/74

<eparsons> close action-74

<trackbot> Closed action-74.

Andrea Perego: action-74 can be closed now.

<eparsons> action-81

<trackbot> action-81 -- Kerry Taylor to Map use cases to bp themes -- due 2015-10-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/81

<eparsons> close action-81

<trackbot> Closed action-81.

kerry: action-81 we finished a lot of that and can probably consider it done.

<eparsons> close action-84

<trackbot> Closed action-84.

<SimonCox> Hemispherism from Mr Tandy there

<eparsons> action-85

<trackbot> action-85 -- Bart van Leeuwen to Write up a bp around properties in wfs to link a feature to its linked data version -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/85

BartvanLeeuwen: action-85 will try to finish this for F2F

<eparsons> action-86

<trackbot> action-86 -- Jeremy Tandy to Check the bp for versioning given in dwbp -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/86

<eparsons> close action-86

<trackbot> Closed action-86.

<eparsons> action-87

<trackbot> action-87 -- Ed Parsons to Arrange meeting with dwbp editors to discuss citations in early december -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/87

<phila> I'm looking at how I might set up a DCAT WG that would handle versioning in particular

<SimonCox> is this 'citations' or 'cross-references' or 'alignment'?

<frans> To me versioning seems to be a dcterms issue primarily

<SimonCox> Or 'factoring of concerns'?

<jtandy> [next DWBP F2F meeting is one month after SDW F2F3]

<eparsons> action-89

<trackbot> action-89 -- Jeremy Tandy to Write how this datacube/gazeteer/foreign key works -- due 2015-11-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/89

<kerry> can we do the call just next week's meeting? that would be better i think

<eparsons> close action-89

<trackbot> Closed action-89.

jtandy: action-89 we need to do more work on this but we do not need to keep this action open.

<eparsons> action-92

<trackbot> action-92 -- Alejandro Llaves to add link to data sample in use case "Publication of air quality data aggregations" -- due 2015-11-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/92

<eparsons> action-94

<trackbot> action-94 -- Bart van Leeuwen to Write about make the links within the dataset discoverable -- due 2015-11-18 -- OPEN

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

<jtandy> [DWBP folks want to go to CR straight after their F2F, so time is short ... need to engage with DWBP editors in the week following SDW F2F]

action-94 has to be reasigned.

<frans> A new action to reassign action 94?

Ed: any other business?

<SimonCox> Are dialin details for Amersfoort available yet?

<SimonCox> Please put them in agenda asap

<SimonCox> thanks all

<lewismc> Thank you very much, see you next time. Best.

bye bye

<jtandy> bye

<ClemensPortele> bye - thanks

<ahaller2> bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks! Bye