12:20:08 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 12:20:08 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-irc 12:20:10 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:20:10 Zakim has joined #sdw 12:20:12 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:20:12 ok, trackbot 12:20:13 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:20:13 Date: 08 June 2016 12:25:21 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw 12:38:49 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160608 12:41:50 kerry has joined #sdw 12:50:08 Nicky has joined #sdw 12:54:04 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 12:56:23 frans has joined #sdw 12:56:24 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 12:57:15 trackbot, start meeting 12:57:17 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:57:19 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:57:19 ok, trackbot 12:57:20 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:57:20 Date: 08 June 2016 12:57:29 rrsagent, make logs public 12:57:46 eparsons has joined #sdw 12:57:56 present+ frans 12:58:07 regrets: Rachel, Lars, Simon 12:58:11 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 12:58:34 regrets+ Linda 12:58:38 regrets+ Matt 12:58:41 present+ nicky 12:58:46 billroberts has joined #sdw 12:58:46 present+ ByronConNZ 12:58:57 regrets+ payam 12:59:04 regrets+ Scott 12:59:11 present+ eparsons 12:59:51 hi, what's this call's webex password? 12:59:53 present+ billroberts 13:00:51 present + kerry 13:00:59 present+ ClausStadler 13:01:16 present+ roba 13:01:19 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 13:01:33 ok 13:01:48 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 13:01:56 present+ ahaller2 13:02:32 scribe: robatkinson 13:02:37 jonblower has joined #sdw 13:02:40 * 13:02:47 present+ jonblower 13:02:50 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 13:02:56 scribeNick; roba 13:03:17 approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes.html 13:03:21 +1 13:03:26 +1 13:03:27 present+ AndreaPerego 13:03:28 +1 13:03:31 +1 13:03:38 +1 13:03:40 +1 13:03:40 +0 13:04:00 resolved: approved minutes 13:04:20 patent call.. 13:04:21 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call patent call 13:04:26 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 13:04:57 joshli has joined #sdw 13:05:12 topic: ISSUE-18 model reuse and ISSUE-19 Multiple types of coverage and Related actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115) 13:05:26 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18 13:06:22 jtandy has joined #sdw 13:06:39 present+ jtandy 13:06:53 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse 13:07:28 present+ joshli 13:07:35 q? 13:07:38 frans references discussion on list - asks if resolution 13:07:42 present+ 13:07:56 RaulGarciaCastro_ has joined #sdw 13:08:00 billroberts - not resolved - passed back to plenary 13:08:29 kerry - reports coverage consensus not a requirement - a good practice 13:09:35 Propose: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR 13:09:48 +1 13:09:48 +1 13:09:53 +1 13:09:53 +1 13:09:55 +1 13:09:56 +1 13:10:01 +1 13:10:08 +1 13:10:15 resolved: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR 13:10:43 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19 ISSUE 19 13:10:46 Issue 19 is about this requirement: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage 13:11:48 frans: requirement is not clear - ask bill for report from coverage sub-group 13:11:50 issue-19? 13:11:50 issue-19 -- Multiple types of coverage requirement -- open 13:11:50 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19 13:12:43 present+ phila 13:12:50 billroberts: agreed we should not try to be comprehensive - concentrate on common cases 13:13:08 ... regular gridded coverages as the most common type 13:13:30 ... not sure how this addresses requirement in UCR 13:13:33 q+ 13:13:49 RaulGarciaCastro_ has joined #sdw 13:13:53 q+ 13:14:01 q? 13:14:14 q+ 13:15:28 billroberts: prioritise simplicity over completeness 13:15:39 Current requirement text: ¨It should be possible to represent many different types of coverage. For instance, to classify coverage data by grid complexity: GridCoverage (GML 3.2.1), RectifiedGridCoverage, ReferenceableGridCoverage, etc.¨ 13:15:44 q+ 13:15:47 ack roba 13:16:47 roba: part of discussion was that if we were to focus on a common case we do not want to close of capability to allow description of more general cases e.g. point cloud where gridded may be a degenerate case 13:17:01 ...some middle ground between all types and only simple ones. 13:17:15 ...leave some room for describing more complex cases without interfering with simple cases 13:17:27 close issue-18 13:17:27 Closed issue-18. 13:18:22 jtandy: interested in environmental data - important not to fall over ourselves achiveing simple grids - lots of other coverages - timeseries and profiles 13:18:40 Kerry_ has joined #sdw 13:18:48 chair: kerry 13:18:55 q+ 13:18:57 q? 13:19:02 ,,, not trying to be comprehensive is appropriate - but at least one example of a non-grid coverage 13:19:08 chair: kerry 13:19:11 ack jtandy 13:19:17 ack j 13:19:54 jonblower: what does it mean to support different types of cov: RDF encoding or conceptual model? 13:20:12 ys, that is the question: what is meant? 13:20:15 ack fr 13:20:53 q+ to suggest that "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage 13:20:54 frans: that is the question - UCR can be interpreted either way, 13:21:38 ack billroberts 13:22:10 jonblower: endorses jtandy suggestion 13:23:23 billroberts: agrees extensible but not a concrete implementation for all, grid + 1 other at least to be elucidated 13:23:58 "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage ... which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc. 13:24:05 ack j 13:24:05 jtandy, you wanted to suggest that "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage 13:24:06 ... coverage WG members invited to suggest other type 13:24:15 kerry: we do have UC... 13:24:17 The question which coverage types should be supported is not the same as the question how the requirement should be understood 13:24:58 q+ 13:24:59 q? 13:25:10 ack jonblower 13:25:32 jtandy: makes proposal 13:26:23 +1 to jonblower about gridded coverage and timeseries (at single point) as priority coverage types to examine 13:26:24 q? 13:26:27 q+ 13:26:28 .jonblower: pointclouds most complex, suggests timeseries as priority 13:26:30 +1 13:26:37 q+ 13:27:10 ack frans 13:27:16 q- 13:28:24 which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc. 13:28:49 +1 13:28:52 +1 13:28:53 +1 13:28:58 +1 13:28:58 +1 13:28:58 +1 13:28:59 +1 13:28:59 +1 13:29:03 +1 13:29:15 This effectively resolves the issue, I think 13:29:16 ... and that we will prioritise gridded coverage and timeseries in the examples 13:29:36 q+ 13:29:44 I think that's a comment for the editors 13:29:49 ack billroberts 13:29:55 +1 to bill 13:30:10 +1 to bill 13:30:13 resolved: reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded " 13:30:25 action-114? 13:30:25 action-114 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-18 -- due 2015-03-01 -- OPEN 13:30:25 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/114 13:30:27 action: frans to reword Issue 19 13:30:27 Created ACTION-177 - Reword issue 19 [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15]. 13:30:43 close action-114 13:30:43 Closed action-114. 13:30:47 action-115? 13:30:47 action-115 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-19 -- due 2016-03-01 -- OPEN 13:30:47 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/115 13:30:54 close action-115 13:30:54 Closed action-115. 13:31:09 close issue-19 13:31:09 Closed issue-19. 13:31:18 topic: ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems 13:31:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:31:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html Kerry_ 13:32:10 issue-32? 13:32:10 issue-32 -- Clarification required on requirement about Independence on reference systems -- open 13:32:10 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32 13:32:21 frans: possible duplicate requirement identified - due to multiple teams working in parallel 13:32:24 +1 13:32:37 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems 13:32:44 ttp://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem 13:33:04 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem 13:33:24 q? 13:33:34 +1 13:33:40 +1 13:33:40 +1 13:33:42 +1 13:33:54 +1 13:33:57 +1 13:33:59 +1 13:34:06 +1 13:34:24 resolved: merge requirements 13:34:37 close issue-32 13:34:37 Closed issue-32. 13:34:39 action: frans: update UCR 13:34:40 Created ACTION-178 - Update ucr [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15]. 13:34:54 /me - don't we need to have a "proposed" before we "resolve"? 13:35:07 topic: F2F meeting plan 13:35:39 kerry: getting close to critcal timing 13:36:35 ... deliverables - SSN in FPWD, UCR needs closing off soon, issues waiting on other deliverables 13:37:09 ... time - work done, no meeting - schedule FPWD soon 13:37:09 sorry, got to leave now. bye all 13:37:22 ... coverage - a way off 13:37:38 just FPWD 13:38:05 q+ to offer status on BP deliverable if the Chair wants :-) 13:38:09 ... BP - at FPWD - "deserves another release" 13:38:31 .... should publish updates before F2F meeting 13:38:38 q+ 13:38:55 [sorry - feeling dumb ... are we talking about OGC TC dublin or W3C TPAC lisbon?] 13:39:03 ... at F2F SSN memebers present, Time not so.. 13:39:10 ah! 13:39:29 then I can agree to another release :-) 13:39:42 q? 13:39:47 kerry: not official F2F at dublin, josh confirms 13:40:01 q- 13:40:04 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon 13:40:18 Our meeting at TPAC is 19-20 Sept 13:40:19 Still and issue, unfortunately, that the TPAC overlaps the OGC meeting in Orlando. 13:40:29 q+ 13:40:35 q+ 13:40:42 ...what to do - close off at F2F ? 13:40:45 ack eparsons 13:41:31 q+ 13:41:34 eparsons: as evil co-chair would like to see iterations of docs before TPAC - use TPAC to revise 13:42:40 q+ to drill a little into 'End of July' 13:43:07 UCR can have another iteration too - provided the remaining issues get enough group attention 13:43:25 jtandy: BP iteration by end July - will check with co-editors - work not yet reflected. Payam with more time, Linda also planning to make time 13:43:50 ack bart 13:45:02 BartvanLeeuwen: has meeting of related project at same time - does not expect feedback by then 13:45:22 q+ to ask if BartvanLeeuwen would have any implementation activity done by then? 13:46:07 ack phila 13:46:07 phila, you wanted to drill a little into 'End of July' 13:46:08 BartvanLeeuwen: suspects early September better for attention than July 13:47:30 phila: asks for "before editors go on holiday to allow time to review" - Sept is a long time for an update. 13:48:16 ... takes time for group to review and consider before formal publication 13:48:31 ack billroberts 13:48:47 And I thought I was evil :-) 13:48:59 q+ 13:49:03 q- 13:49:23 * we know you are Ed. 13:51:35 So for the record, aiming for the coverage workgroup to publish a FPWD soon after TPAC, so have a draft ready for discussion/finalisation at the TPAC F2F 13:51:44 Time scale for Time noted. 13:51:49 phila: coverages after TPAC, SSN after TPAC - timings to be put to W3C mgment in next few days to allow extension to June 2017 13:51:58 q? 13:53:26 ChrisLittle: timescale for time deliverable looks feasible - based on Simon's doc - not tied too closely to ISO 13:53:51 ... published by endo of July, Chris/Simon not at F2F 13:53:55 q? 13:54:29 roba: Some of us, including Chris, will be together on Friday 24th at the TC in Dublin. I'll be looking at some QB descriptions of these coverage use cases 13:54:41 ... Hope to have something to feed in - talk to us in Dublin. 13:54:42 great, thanks Rob. Sorry, I can't make it to that Dublin meeting 13:55:22 ChrisLittle: Talked about Mark Hedlet's work on WKT for non-Gregorian times 13:55:32 roba: Yep. Spoke to him today 13:55:33 thanks phil 13:55:39 topic: UCR completion 13:55:47 s/Hedlet/Hedley/ 13:56:17 kerry: asks frans: re UCR timing, needs 13:56:31 Sorry folks, I have to leave now. Bye 13:56:35 Bye 13:56:39 frans: asks group to look at open issues 13:57:21 [that's going to be difficult for BP editors as we must focus on the next release of BP] 13:57:43 issue-38? 13:57:43 issue-38 -- decide if and how to add the proposed use case -- open 13:57:43 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38 13:58:14 frans: next iteration well before TPAC 13:59:00 joshli has joined #sdw 13:59:19 andreaperego: INSPIRE conference after TPAC - opportunity to show work 13:59:46 +1 13:59:56 ... deadline on Friday - abstract only needed - asks for interest, attending? 14:00:18 +0 14:00:22 -1 14:00:26 +0 (no budget :-( ) 14:00:27 -1 14:00:29 I do hope SDDWG will get lots of exposure at the INSPIRE conference 14:00:33 probably -1 14:00:40 :( 14:00:43 joshli -- expect to put a spatial ontology proposal (update of GeoSPARQL) on WebProtege tomorrow. 14:00:53 Maybe +.5 14:01:00 +0.5 14:01:10 +0 14:01:15 -1 14:01:55 Great news josh! 14:02:04 joshli has left #sdw 14:03:28 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:03:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:03:41 thx bye 14:03:50 thanks, bye 14:03:52 Thanks, and bye! 14:03:54 Bye! 14:04:08 thanks bye 14:04:40 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:04:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html phila 16:10:53 Zakim has left #sdw 16:26:40 phila has joined #sdw