13:01:35 RRSAgent has joined #sdwcov 13:01:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwcov-irc 13:01:37 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:01:37 Zakim has joined #sdwcov 13:01:39 Zakim, this will be SDW 13:01:39 ok, trackbot 13:01:40 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 13:01:40 Date: 01 June 2016 13:01:53 present+ kerry 13:02:03 Present+ eparsons 13:02:07 present+ Duo 13:02:21 present+ ByronCinNZ 13:02:32 present+ billroberts 13:03:09 do please join the webex if you haven't already - details on the meeting page https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20160601 13:04:32 WebExpassword? 13:04:42 sdw 13:04:57 s/sdw// 13:06:26 anything else we can help with on webex byron? 13:06:38 I see you joining now - cool 13:07:26 scribe: eparsons 13:07:40 https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-sdwcov-minutes 13:07:42 billroberts Minutes of last meeting 13:07:56 +1 13:08:01 Topic : Approve last week's minutes 13:08:06 Topic : Approve last week's minutes 13:08:11 +1 13:08:13 +1 13:08:17 RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes 13:08:27 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 13:08:54 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Coverage-Telecon20160601 13:09:29 billroberts first item last call update 13:10:30 billroberts Landsat data in RDF, update from Reading on coverage json, roba data cube talk 13:10:42 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Coverage_draft_requirements 13:11:08 billroberts kerry & mike thanks for comments on this 13:11:18 kerry not complete - will do more 13:11:21 s/mike/maik 13:11:42 billroberts more comments on reqs welcome 13:11:44 q+ 13:11:57 ack k 13:12:39 kerry Req alignment with others should not be there ? 13:12:50 other standards that is 13:12:57 this was: 5.23 Spatial data modeling issues solved in existing models shall be considered for adoption, e.g. O&M, SoilML or the OGC coverage model. 13:13:06 kerry Add to plenary meeting agenda ? 13:13:57 billroberts sounds like good idea - generic afterall 13:14:26 kerry maybe others like that ? 13:14:45 billroberts Multi-language for example ? 13:15:34 kerry - No :-) req for ontology developed here needs language options 13:17:00 billroberts Go through at look for other generics to discuss at plenary 13:17:46 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_technical_approach 13:18:12 billroberts link is attempt to bring together work so far from others 13:18:42 billroberts Need some metadata for extracts + actual data (domain) 13:18:56 billroberts metadata in RDF 13:19:17 billroberts Real data in more compact form - e.g. json array ? 13:19:26 billroberts or image data 13:20:02 billroberts RDF metadata - use json-ld for context 13:20:32 billroberts supply metadata first and then data 2 steps 13:20:57 billroberts Different levels of metadata for collections of objects 13:21:12 Maik has joined #sdwcov 13:21:21 q+ 13:21:22 billroberts Should in terms of scope select only some use cases 13:21:26 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Candidate_high_level_technical_approach 13:21:50 present+ Maik 13:21:52 q? 13:21:57 ack r 13:23:04 roba list is better than req doc - 3 concerns relate to information needed - where is the metdata ? 13:23:25 rob - attached to service, dataset, element etc ? 13:24:02 roba - need to be consistent - currently different in different places 13:24:25 roba - also whats the best encoding ? 13:25:00 roba - 3 separate concerns more accessible to people 13:25:42 roba Different viewpoints result in different metadata 13:26:25 roba Find way to express expectation from different viewpoints 13:26:57 roba Datacube approach leads to RDF working well for metadata 13:27:18 roba - Hard to know scope currently 13:27:55 billroberts Fair point - jumble of req at the moment - open to ideas to bring structure 13:29:04 billroberts Question ? 2 stage approach to retrieve extract - 1) metadata 2) payload 13:29:30 billroberts Want to know what you are reviving first ... 13:29:40 billroberts Makes sense ?? 13:29:43 q+ 13:29:47 q+ 13:29:47 ack k 13:29:56 q+ 13:30:15 kerry - thinks important not sure yet ... 13:31:00 billroberts Common with geo data - geometry in GML for example 13:31:37 billroberts Need to know if the extract is the one you want and how to deal with it... 13:32:26 kerry Philosophical point of difference between data and metadata ... 13:32:40 q+ 13:32:52 kerry Don't wants thinks to be seen as different docs ? 13:33:58 Maik I agree OGC for example as coverage doc - coverage json does not have distinction 13:34:43 billroberts based on Maik approach range has separate id not in same json file 13:35:24 q? 13:35:28 ack maik 13:35:29 Maik separate id's don't break linking ? 13:35:46 ack rob 13:36:42 roba Data & metadata as single entity but there might be a metadata view of the entity 13:37:12 roba trick is do id of subsets 13:37:45 roba services are key to this 13:38:08 roba richer encoding makes this work 13:38:08 ack b 13:38:12 ack B 13:38:44 ByronCinNZ Metadata can be both with data and separate - should support both views 13:38:55 q+ 13:39:03 ack k 13:39:55 kerry analogy Dublin Core & RDF comes from html meta tag worldview - which failed ! 13:40:02 q+ 13:40:49 q+ 13:41:20 q? 13:41:25 billroberts See data as one big graph separation from a practical perspective to allow delivery of data 13:42:07 Maik What about coverages in different formats, so different metadata embedding ? 13:42:12 q+ 13:43:04 ack r 13:43:10 billroberts Our object is to find one way or a family of ways to deliver coverages ? 13:43:23 ack m 13:44:05 roba Search for a item on ebay, search engine provides ebay object but with links to other things aswell 13:45:08 roba Metadata may be v.large graph needs different views in that case - one view for simple.. another view more complex - nice if these consistent 13:45:25 q? 13:46:00 q- 13:46:18 roba Are there canonical views e.g Dublin Core ? - recommended views e.g dimensions ? 13:47:07 billroberts useful discussion thank you.. 13:48:25 billroberts Full spectrum of coverage data complicated , don't need to do all - but key are gridded coverages & point clouds x,y,z,t etc 13:48:33 +1 13:48:44 billroberts Question - should we aim just at these ? 13:48:46 +1 13:48:50 +1 13:48:55 +1 13:49:03 +1 13:49:07 +1 13:49:35 billroberts Refining that a bit - regular grid only ? 13:49:36 q+ 13:49:37 q+ 13:49:47 ack r 13:50:29 roba One case alone dangerous from a info modelling pint of view 13:50:36 ack k 13:51:42 kerry opposite view - need to focus gridded cases dominate, point clouds maybe but no more.. 13:52:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:52:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwcov-minutes.html eparsons 13:52:37 feature,t 13:52:43 q+ 13:52:54 ack m 13:52:57 billroberts Grids can do time series... degenerate case 13:53:53 q+ 13:53:55 Maik agree x,y,z,t OK not composite x,y vectors for example 13:55:45 billroberts Makes sense to be extensible, optimised for point clouds later... built on grids 13:55:50 +1 13:55:59 ack r 13:57:12 roba Time dimension makes all degenerate grids ? 13:57:40 roba Hierarchical best practice is what I'm looking for 13:58:47 billroberts special case that we are trying to solve > million more points 13:59:22 billroberts Time nearly up... will try to work on a updated versions of doc 13:59:44 billroberts improve requirements based on this discussion 14:00:12 Time dimension makes all degenerate grids => using patterns i time dimension for x,y would address regular grids 14:00:13 billroberts Need to work between calls 14:00:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:00:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/01-sdwcov-minutes.html eparsons 14:01:20 exit 14:01:28 bye all 14:01:34 kerry has left #sdwcov 14:01:34 \join #sdw 14:04:13 billroberts has joined #sdwcov 15:58:22 Zakim has left #sdwcov