12:56:40 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 12:56:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-irc 12:56:42 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:56:42 Zakim has joined #sdw 12:56:44 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:56:44 ok, trackbot 12:56:45 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:56:45 Date: 27 April 2016 12:57:00 Present+ eparsons 12:57:10 trackbot, start meeting 12:57:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:57:12 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:57:14 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:57:14 ok, trackbot 12:57:15 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:57:15 Date: 27 April 2016 12:57:24 present+ phila, eparsons, ahaller2 12:57:30 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160427 12:58:02 chair: Ed 12:58:08 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:58:34 ScottSimmons has joined #sdw 12:59:52 frans has joined #sdw 12:59:56 jtandy has joined #sdw 13:00:31 Regrets: ChrisL,Rachel, Lars, Frans 13:01:39 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 13:01:52 sorry frans 13:02:01 zakim, code 13:02:01 I don't understand 'code', jtandy 13:02:15 present+ jtandy 13:02:18 password is the name of the group 3 letters? 13:02:23 ah 13:02:31 present+ joshlieberman 13:02:52 present+ ScottSimmons 13:03:03 billroberts has joined #sdw 13:03:13 present+ billroberts 13:04:14 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 13:04:43 kerry has joined #sdw 13:05:02 present+ kerry 13:05:35 regrets- Frans 13:06:07 present+ frans 13:06:41 scribe: Jeremy Tandy 13:06:51 scribe: jtandy 13:06:54 scribeNick: jtandy 13:07:08 Topic : Approve last week's minutes 13:07:09 present+ AndreaPerego 13:07:15 +1 13:07:17 Proposed : Approve last week's minutes 13:07:17 +1 13:07:21 +1 13:07:22 http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-sdw-minutes.html 13:07:25 PROPOSED: Approve previous plenary meeting's minutes 13:07:28 +1 13:07:28 +! 13:07:31 +1 13:07:33 +1 13:07:37 RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes 13:07:37 +1 13:07:38 +! 13:07:48 Topic : Patent Call 13:07:55 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 13:08:02 eparsons: calls us pedants! 13:08:11 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 13:08:12 eparsons: main business now ... 13:08:24 +present RaulGarciaCastro 13:08:28 ... how to best make use of this plenary call? what are you ideas? 13:08:31 Topic : SSN A primer 13:08:53 eparsons: sets up kerry to talk about the SSN primer 13:09:12 kerry: happy to describe- sadly not so many SSN folks in attendance 13:09:14 RESOLUTION: that DUL alignment becomes a note or some other product outside the recommendation 13:09:29 kerry: we made this resolution in _their_ meeting 13:09:36 ... see above 13:09:39 s/RESOLUTION:/We passed a RESOLUTION - / 13:10:17 kerry: we wanted to publish [things that complement] the core SSN spec - but separate 13:10:38 kerry: phila suggested a Note, ScottSimmons suggested a few options including 13:11:09 ... the DUL bit could be published as an extension (no thanks!) or a best practice / discussion paper 13:11:31 ... phila later suggested Primer instead of a Note 13:11:41 ... primer seems best; a tutorial 13:11:58 phila: q+ to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs 13:12:05 q+ to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs 13:12:09 ... DUL won't be the _only_ example of 'extra bits and pieces' required to use the core SSN spec 13:12:26 kerry: this issue is also likely to hit us with the Time deliverable 13:12:43 q+ 13:12:49 ack next 13:12:50 phila, you wanted to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs 13:13:05 ... ontology publication (REC track) will be fairly dry - we put the interesting and complementary information in the Primer 13:13:21 q+ to say that if we don’t recommend DUL, I would not put it in a primer; people could choose to align to others 13:13:26 ack next 13:13:39 phila: we only have Notes and Recs ... the Primer could be either Note or Primer ... suggests that we have the SSN Primer as a Note 13:13:55 ScottSimmons: asks what we want from this doc 13:14:20 ... best practice is a formal endorsement of the OGC community, discussion paper is just "useful" 13:14:36 kerry: sounds like a discussion paper to me; full of examples 13:15:02 phila: agrees - a REC is formally endorsed, a Note is not ... more like a discussion paper then 13:15:16 eparsons: what's the publication process in each case? 13:15:25 phila: WG agree to publish a Note 13:16:09 ScottSimmons: recommendation from WG for 8-day vote from TC 13:16:09 ack next 13:16:10 RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that if we don’t recommend DUL, I would not put it in a primer; people could choose to align to others 13:16:48 RaulGarciaCastro: I don't have a clear notion of the semantics of "primer" - but if DUL is outside the core spec, then does this really fit in the Primer? 13:17:02 ... people could use something other than DUL ... 13:17:22 kerry: we're not saying that DUL is the only alignment you could use 13:17:46 ... the alignment to DUL is proposed as an _example_ ... others are possible 13:17:57 ... but we won't develop that 13:18:32 kerry: the DUL alignment is just an example [of how to use SSN] - we're not saying that you must (or should) use DUL 13:18:54 eparsons: we all need to review the primer anyway, so we have a chance to comment on the content 13:19:18 eparsons: summarises ... Primer it is then - as a W3C Note and OGC Discussion paper 13:19:27 kerry: requests a vote 13:19:56 eparsons: are there other deliverables where this approach makes sense? e.g. where you need to complement a dry spec 13:20:13 ... what are other people's thoughts 13:20:49 q+ 13:20:53 jtandy: Where you have a dry spec that doesn't work well with lots of embedded examples, stick the examples in something else - that makes sense to me 13:21:00 ack next 13:21:33 kerry: we're not setting a policy here- just a recommendation for Time ... 13:21:56 kerry: can we have a resolution that SSN team deliver a REC and a complementary Note? 13:22:01 PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL 13:22:30 kerry: notes that the SSN REC-track FPWD is coming soon! 13:22:30 PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note 13:22:35 +1 13:22:39 +1 13:22:41 +1 13:22:41 +1 13:22:42 +1 13:22:42 +1 13:22:57 RESOLUTION: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note 13:23:03 +1 13:23:10 eparsons: looks good ... sold to the lady in Australia 13:23:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:23:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:23:20 Topic: A Spatial Ontology 13:23:49 eparsons: "the spatial ontology to rule them all" ... we _do_ need to address this 13:24:20 frans: this topic could be at the core of our mission to [clarify] the spatial data standards landscape 13:24:32 ... there are no clear solutions at the moment 13:24:46 ... there are interoperability issues with all the options today 13:24:58 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 13:25:04 ... implementers are still at a loss to see which option they should supprot 13:25:10 s/supprot/support/ 13:25:19 frans: the world is waiting to be told 13:25:33 frans: there are many ways to approach the spatial ontology 13:25:34 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/An_agreed_spatial_ontology 13:25:51 frans: I made this wiki page to collect thoughts around this issue 13:26:16 ... my personal thought is that the spatial ontology should, at least, define geometry as a core concept 13:26:32 ... at a fundamental everyone agrees what a geometry is 13:26:52 ... we probably have lots of standards because [they have evolved from] different perspectives 13:27:29 ... perhaps we need to base our standard on the underpinning [mathematical] theory - rather than a particular domain view 13:27:34 q+ to ask 4 questions 13:27:39 ack next 13:27:40 phila, you wanted to ask 4 questions 13:27:45 Do we think there is already a clear preferred spatial ontology? 13:27:45 If so, is there consensus on endorsing it? 13:27:45 If not, is there one that is within our power to amend? 13:27:45 If not, can we present the pros and cons of each and leave it up to implementers? 13:27:47 frans: so lets start by collecting our thoughts 13:28:25 phila: question 1- do we already think there is already a preferred spatial ontology? if there is, we should just say that (assuming the group can agree) 13:28:45 phila: question 2- if there is one that _almost_ works, can we amend that? 13:29:13 phila: question 3- failing that, can we identify when and where each option should be used? 13:29:35 frans: we can see a preference for ontologies- but the preference depends on domain 13:29:53 ... for example, spatial folks like GeoSPARQL 13:30:10 ... but this doesn't address all the needs 13:30:17 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 13:30:26 q+ 13:30:30 ... we could start by trying to evolve GoeSPARQL 13:30:43 q+ 13:30:59 s/GoeSPARQL/GeoSPARQL/ 13:31:11 frans: perhaps we could start with GeoSPARQL 13:31:33 ... and try to make it usable for everyone 13:31:41 ack next 13:32:00 eparsons: so - GeoSPARQL seems like a good starting point 13:32:32 scribe: phila 13:32:43 eparsons: Is this the right level of abstraction? 13:32:55 ... Does everyone care about points lines and polygons, abstarct soatial features etc. 13:33:08 ... We might be better off taking about roads, rivers etc. 13:33:17 s/abstarct soatial/abstract spatial/ 13:33:29 frans: Should the spatial ontology be about spatial things or about geometry? 13:33:34 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 13:33:40 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-ont-20071023/ 13:33:49 ... If I look at the practical problems - it has to do with expressing geometry (with CRSs in the background) 13:33:57 ... No practical probs in what a spatial thing is 13:34:15 frans: There are already systems in place for classifying 13:34:17 ack next 13:34:27 scribe jtandy 13:34:30 joshlieberman: I have some comments 13:34:31 scribe: jtandy 13:34:42 ... geometry is important 13:35:11 ... we don't need to establish a theoretical validation for geometry - there's lots of existing work 13:35:35 ... we don't need an ontology for geometry- geometry is [... missed ...] 13:36:02 s/[... missed ...]/for computation/ 13:36:04 joshlieberman said 'geometry is for computation' 13:36:09 joshlieberman: after 13 years, we still have people saying "lets just use W3C basic Geo" 13:36:25 ... [frustrated] 13:36:43 ... this work is the precursor of GeoSPARQL - which is based on 19107 13:36:56 ... but there's very little traction in the web community 13:37:15 ... if we can figure out why there is a lack of traction then this would be a good start 13:37:28 q+ to talk about developers 13:37:48 frans: agrees. the lack of traction could be that it is (i) unknown, or (ii) doesn't meet all the requirements 13:38:08 frans: notes that GeoSPARQL doesn't actually identify the geometry definitions 13:38:12 s/[frustrated]/this work for incorporated and extended by the W3C Geo Ontologies IG (XGR-geo-ont-20071023)/ 13:38:34 s/this work for incorporated/this work was incorporated/ 13:38:37 ... this is [impenetrable] for people wanting to transform between different encodings 13:39:07 joshlieberman: the definitions are incorporated into ISO standards, which are only available for a fee! 13:39:17 ... this is an ongoing issue for OGC 13:39:27 ... (not good for ScottSimmons blood pressure) 13:39:39 ... we want to make these standards web accessible 13:39:56 (gotta run and up my meds after that comment) 13:40:08 ... there's a difference to starting from scratch; we want to make [the existing work] web accessible 13:40:40 joshlieberman: we can start from the OWL ontologies that are being derived from the UML models in ISO 19107 13:40:50 ... this was Simon Cox's suggestion 13:41:18 ... perhaps we can develop a web accessible standard based on ISO 19107 and ISO 19109 13:41:30 q+ 13:41:43 ack next 13:41:44 phila, you wanted to talk about developers 13:41:49 ... I don't really care if this upsets ISO - but the issue with ISO is about intellectual property of the text- not the data models 13:41:49 q+ 13:41:59 -> https://youtu.be/NLbyHffKQuU Vladimir Agafonkin's story of creating Leaflet. 13:42:00 ScottSimmons: agrees ... but this would take time 13:42:33 phila: a barrier to adoption [of GeoSPARQL] is that it has the word "SPARQL" in it 13:43:06 ack next 13:43:10 ... also, ref experience from developer of leaflet, who is astounded that you need more than a lat-lon ... surely Google maps [does the heavy lifting] 13:43:34 ... you're not going to get a Web developer to write a SPARQL query 13:43:45 q+ 13:43:45 frans: GeoSPARQL has good points 13:43:56 ... such as the geometry definitions 13:44:01 ... it's modular 13:44:24 ... if we take the route to open up ISO 19107 and ISO 19109 13:44:43 ... can we modularise [GeoSPARQL] to include / refer to these 13:45:18 joshlieberman: its a pity that Mathew Perry isn't here; he developed the properties 13:45:34 q+ 13:45:35 ... required to query against (?) geometries 13:45:40 s/ ref experience from developer of leaflet, who is/ ref experience from developer of leaflet. In general, developers are/ 13:45:53 q+ to talk about the most important aspects of geometry from a dev point of view 13:46:02 ... this was an add on; didn't realise that this needed to be done until after we'd started 13:46:23 ... modularising GeoSPARQL [is a good idea] 13:46:49 joshlieberman: we do need to recognise that many developers won't want to do all the complex stuff 13:46:59 q+ to talk about practical requirements for (a) Web developers & (b) LD guys 13:47:09 ... so we need to map their simple world onto GeoSPARQL 13:47:10 ack next 13:47:19 q- joshlieberman 13:47:22 ... specifically, we need to include GeoJSON 13:47:41 What formalizations of the non-geometric property literals, such as are needed to fully satisfy the group's use cases and others like them? 13:47:41 kerry: I liked where joshlieberman was going with that- sounds sensible 13:48:09 kerry: copies a sentence from the report that joshlieberman refers to 13:48:32 ... discussing geospatial relationships and the venacular (e.g. "next door to") 13:48:34 ack next 13:48:42 ... perhaps this could be added to the ontology 13:48:47 eparsons: back to frans 13:48:53 Yes, the point of the incubator report was that there are several ontologies relevant to spatial data. 13:49:05 frans: extensibility is another key requirement 13:49:19 ... GeoSPARQL already supports this 13:49:50 ack next 13:49:51 billroberts, you wanted to talk about the most important aspects of geometry from a dev point of view 13:49:53 frans: if we take GeoSPARQL as a starting point can we using this to bridge the gap between spatial and normal data 13:49:57 Could you define what that gap is? Arguably it's a question of coordinate system 13:50:06 q+ to talk about JSON-LD context files 13:50:08 eparsons: intervenes to get back to queue 13:50:36 billroberts: we quite like a SPARQL query- but mostly, we want to get hold a chunk of geometry 13:50:44 q- 13:50:48 ... e.g. the boundary of my town 13:51:14 ... in GeoJSON so that I can work with it - to draw it on a map, put in elastic search etc. 13:51:25 ack next 13:51:26 AndreaPerego, you wanted to talk about practical requirements for (a) Web developers & (b) LD guys 13:51:35 ... simply getting the geometries [as objects] would solve 95% of my problems 13:51:49 AndreaPerego: refers to previous work 13:52:12 ... most web developers just want to get the geometries - 13:52:23 ... in which ever format suits them 13:52:32 ... in the appropriate CRS 13:52:38 ... at the right level of complexity 13:52:50 AndreaPerego: the main issue is how to fill in the gaps 13:53:14 ... GeoSPARQL has lots of stuff- but doesn't say how to do a bounding box 13:53:42 q+ 13:53:45 ... looking from a practical point of view, I am concerned about the ability of the WG to cope with this issue in the time we have 13:53:59 ... should we not try to help reuse what is already available? 13:54:14 eparsons: good point- we need to consider this 13:54:23 About gaps: https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Use_case:_Sub-properties_for_locn:geometry 13:54:26 ack next 13:54:33 https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Use_case:_CRS_specification 13:54:40 https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/LOCN_extension:_Metadata 13:55:03 ... how do we go forward? Presumably, this is another deliverable beyond the BP work? Jeremy and Linda to comment 13:55:54 joshlieberman: W3C and OGC can work together to deliver this 13:56:23 Yes, we need as many people on the case as possible 13:56:25 ... timing is an issue; we could get this going in June TC 13:56:39 scribe: phila 13:56:59 Topic: Virtual F2F 13:57:25 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016 13:57:52 jtandy: For thos interested - on Tuesday next, European afternoon, 11:00 UTC onwards, we're going to try and work through outstanding issues 13:58:13 ... make big progress. I've turned the narrative into chunks that have tangible examples in them. 13:58:26 ... See if they make them constraints, underpinning issues etc. 13:58:43 ... I suggest we keep the spatial ontology thread separate from that discussion 13:58:53 Topic: back to Spatial Ontology 13:59:11 eparsons: If we do it as a separate deliverable, we need people. I suggest Frans and Josh? 13:59:19 q+ 13:59:21 joshlieberman: I can put some time into that 13:59:25 Yes, but we need a larger group 13:59:38 ack next 13:59:39 eparsons: I agree we need a larger group 13:59:54 jtandy: I think tis is an issue thatwe might be able to get extra support from the office on. 14:00:10 s/thatwe/that we/ 14:00:18 joshlieberman: I point out that we have time on the Thursday in the TC for this. 08:00 Dubline time 14:00:23 s/Dubline/Dublin/ 14:00:37 eparsons: Out of time guys. Please continue on e-mail. 14:00:51 eparsons: So we have a new deliverable. 14:00:57 ... We'll talk again in 2 weeks. 14:01:01 #/me no 14:01:10 kerry: Two new deliverables tis meeting 14:01:13 Thanks, and bye! 14:01:14 Thanks, bye 14:01:14 bye 14:01:16 Bye 14:01:17 thanks bye 14:01:18 joshlieberman has left #sdw 14:01:21 thank all - bye 14:01:32 bye! 14:01:36 bye 14:01:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:01:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:21:39 jtandy has joined #sdw 16:04:16 Zakim has left #sdw 17:38:39 eparsons has joined #sdw