Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<eparsons> hello ByronCinNZ welcome !!

<ByronCinNZ> Thanks

<frans> Hello Byron, how nice of you to join the club

<ByronCinNZ> My pleasure entirely

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

<trackbot> Date: 25 May 2016

<billroberts> (mostly present anyway)

<scribe> scribe: phila

<scribe> scribeNick: phila

<ByronCinNZ> Yes

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html

<jtandy> +0 ... was elsewhere

<kerry> +1

<eparsons> +1

PROPOSED: Accept those minutes

<frans> +0

<Linda> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes.html

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

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

<eparsons> Topic : SSN FPWD Update

-> SSN Ed Draft

<roba> +1

kerry: We warned folks that there wasn't much more to do before we published. Not much done since then, most of what has been done has been cosmetic.
... Substatial bit was to add in the auto-generated description of the vocab.
... People asked for the namespace to be included and linked - done.
... Talked a lot about modularisation - big issue
... And to make clear that what we have at this stage is just some ideas in the section on modularisation and work to be done.
... So not all that fully developed but we'd like to published it as an FPWD/Discussion doc
... The SSN CG output is unchanged except for the import of the DUL ontology.
... Since we brought this to everyone's attention, Andrea asked for a diagram to be put in.
... I pointed him to an old diagram...

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/images/OntStructure-Overview.jpg

kerry: I didn't put it in so that I wasn't changing it yet again havign said it was stable. And because Andrea wasn't keenn on it. We had it in an earlier version and took it out.
... It has a modular structure that we may not keep.

<AndreaPerego> Maybe it can be split into several diagrams + a general one including the main concepts.

eparsons: Thanks Kerry

kerry: Any questions?

<AndreaPerego> Something similar to what was done for PROV.

kerry: Thanks Phil for cleaning up the LODE stuff

eparsons: Any questions and/or comments

<jtandy> component in a material is β, given a probability α of falsely

<jtandy> line 346 of index.html

jtandy: A quick look through... if you look at the section 4.1.6 - not sure I understand that. Line 346 in the GH doc

kerry: That's in the automated processing in LODE. Will have come out of an annotation in the ontology itself. I'll fix that.

<eparsons> phil : Needs to be american english capital W for web

<ahaller2> I can do that

<AndreaPerego> Me too ;)

phila: Thanks ahaller2

AndreaPerego: A comment on the figures... I think a diagram is very useful.
... The figure that you pointed to is quite complex. Maybe an option would be to split it into different figures then have a general figure linking the entities and leaving out the details.
... This was used in the PROV ontology, for example.
... For me, looking at the doc, I just see a list of classes and properties and it's hard to understand the model

kerry: Although I agree with you, and what you describe has beenn done before
... it was done by hand - quite a big job.
... Really hesitant to do that and transfer it over given the discussions taking place at the moment. I strongly suspect that the breeak up will look quite different.

<roba> +1 - but perhaps a placeholder saying we intend to do so?

kerry: Not keen to take that on in the short term.
... Would likely be a wasted effort

<ahaller2> +1 to not including a diagram at this stage

kerry: I could put that old picture in there but I'm not keen to take on a new diagram solution, esven though it is clearly required.
... We could link to the SSNXG

AndreaPerego: I understand the problem. If we havea just the main entities, the ones unlikely to change - that's the core.

kerry: I'm afraid that is the main entities - SSN is quite big.

AndreaPerego: I tried to visualise it using VOWL

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest you add a note to the document indicating that you're waiting for discussion to reach consensus before creating diagrams?

jtandy: I'd suggest that creating a diagram is hard, we can at least say that a diagram is coming.

<eparsons> +1 to diagram placeholder

kerry: That seems appropriate. I can do that.

jtandy: Tell people you're not going to just given them a list and expect people to stitch it together themselves.

frans: Slightly different question. I see you're separating from DULCE. Are you planning to tighten the link with other vocabs on time and space =- especially our Time deliverable

kerry: Yes.

Linda: Going back to the diagram issue. I understand, as a fellow editor, that you have time constraints. On the other hand you want feedback - don't people need a diagram to give feedback?

kerry: Fair view - you woldn't understand it very well without knowing SSN already.

<jtandy> [I wonder if you could include the old version of the diagram as a placeholder?]

kerry: Sounds to me as if we should link to the old one for now and say that it will be replaced

<jtandy> [that's the idea]

PROPOSAL: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a future version to reflect the modularisation.

kerry: The people who will make useful comments about adding new stuff, or aligning it, what goes in what module - those people will have experience with it already
... Short answer is no, I don't think so

eparsons: Any other comments or questions

PROPOSAL: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a future version to reflect the modularisation.

<eparsons> +1

<Linda> +1

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<billroberts> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<ahaller2> +1

RESOLUTION: That the SSN doc should be linked to the old SSN diagram and text added to say that this will be updated in a future version to reflect the modularisation.

<frans> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<roba> +1

eparsons: So we should make that change before FPWD?

kerry: Yes

PROPOSED: That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology be published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to - components in the material text be fixed; American English; capital W; and the diagram as resolved
... That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology be published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to - omponents in the material text being fixed; American English being used throughout; capital W for Web; and the diagram as resolved

<ahaller2> +1

<Linda> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<frans> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<eparsons> +1

ScottSimmons: This will need to be carried forward to the Geosmeantics DWG. We'll have to discuss how to do this as we don't currently have a Standards WG for this

<billroberts> +1

eparsons: Good point.

ScottSimmons: It expedites our process - it aligns with W3C process. Community standards are very new at OGC of course.

kerry: is there something I should do?

ScottSimmons: Yes, when I know what they are
... What we're doing now is adequate preparation

<jtandy> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

RESOLUTION: That the current Editors' Draft of the SSN Ontology be published as an W3C FPWD/OGC Discussion Paper subject to: components in the material text being fixed; American English being used throughout; capital W for Web; and the diagram as resolved

phila: We'll publish it on Tuesday 31st

<eparsons> Topic : BP Progress, Testbed and fire service example

Linda: Last week we had a BP call. We haven't yet made a lot of progress on the narrative that we talked about last time. I made some progress and I see that Andrea has also done this.
... I hope others who have their names on bits of the narrative will do the same.
... Some people have asked whether it's appropriate to cite the Geonovum testbed as it is experiemental.
... I'd like to put that to the group here.

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest its ok

jtandy: My opinion is that the stuff from the Geonovum testbed is evidence of what people are doing in the reakl world now without any new technologies so I think it's OK

AndreaPerego: +1 to jtandy
... The links to the examples in the spec will be included for the long term, we need to point to some references that won't change in the near future.
... No 404s please.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about local copies

eparsons: That might be hard - we want to give examples of what is true at the time of writing

phila: We can put copies in the directory with the doc on w3.org which will make it persistent

Linda: It might be a bit too big

phila: Maybe an extract?

Linda: That could work, yes

eparsons: What sort of example are we talking about here?

Linda: There are some code snippets in JSON and some simplification of coordinates
... We plan to use more testbed content in the BP doc.

eparsons: OK, so code snippets and encoding, rather than references to BPs happening elsewhere.
... OK

Linda: The other subject that we want to talk about is the fire department example. Bart has offered to work on a consolidated example around the flooding narrative
... He'll do this within the context of the project he has with the Dutch fire department. So that's running code.
... That's my update.

eparsons: Thank you then. So those of us who have our names there should be getting on with this.

jtandy: One of the things that I'm doing is going through the almost final DWBP Doc www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/
... It's turned into a very good doc. I think all the BPs they're talking about are relevant for spatial data. We don't need to focus on them all.
... Others we may chose to specialise
... It doesn't talk about linking as much as I'd like.
... I'm looking at how we can capitalise on their work without repeating it.
... I'd like to make a proposal back to SDW in future about what to do with this.

eparsons: I was looking at the doc this morning. It's very good. I like the structure. Happy that we're borrowing some of that structure.

AndreaPerego: This happened to me when we were drafting the bit on metadata. I went through our BPs and DWBP BPs and found the matches and relationships
... Some of the requirements - I was explaining in the narrative that some of the BPs aren't mentioned in our narrativeas they're more generic.
... I think it's important to explicitly say that this is a specialisation of BP {x} and how to enforce it in the spatial domain.

jtandy: Everything in that doc is relevant, but we have some extra stuff to say.

roba: I did post a comment to the list in reponse to Andrea's comment. I thought there was some weakness in the BPs in that metadata was focussed on discovery metadata
... There were references for data quality.

<frans> do data on the web best practices have URIs?

roba: There were mechanisms for machine readable structural metadata. We see times when we want different flavours on metadata.
... It's not clearly described for how to attach these things to real world objects on the Web.
... maybe it's worth making a comment to DWBP

<Linda> Yes Frans they do

jtandy: They're going to fix errors, but they're probably not going to add new sections now
... So if there's something missing then we should put it in ours.

roba: Now's the last chance to make changes then.

eparsons: If there's something we need that's missibng then,OK, we'll add it.

<AndreaPerego> s/IF there's something we need that's missibng/If there's something we need that's missing/

Time Progress

<eparsons> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/

eparsons: this is stuff that Simon has been getting on and doing

<frans> Does the SDW BP reference DW best practices by URI?

eparsons: Pretty much on his own.
... He has difficulty joining these calls due to time zone issues.
... I guess this is a call for us to look at it and then socialise it/.
... But note that there is a lot of good work going on.

jtandy: Chris is still involved and working with Simon. I've been in Geneva so a bit out of the loop.

eparsons: I just want to make sure it's not just Simon working in isolation.

jtandy: I believe Simon is taking his previous work and putting it into shape. Chris is providing wider context

<eparsons> Topic : W3C TPAC and F2F in Lisbon

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F4

eparsons: I'm particularly asking you to think about. Whether you're going to be attending or not attending either way.
... We keep badgering you about this as it's a touristy place at a touristy time. Hotels will be booked etc.

jtandy: but panicking about where you're going to stay is part of the fun

phila: The planners need to know one way or the other

AndreaPerego: I'm trying to book my flight and hotel, but I'm not sure about the relevant days.
... We have Mon-Tue and the plenary day. Can we have meetings with other WGs?

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html Schedule

eparsons: The added complexity of course is the concurrent OGC TC
... I certainly aim to be there Mon-Wed
... Thanks everyone. Good timing today. Meet in this plenary in 2 weeks' time

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<ahaller2> bye

<frans> thanks and have a good day