Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<scribe> chair: Kerry

<scribe> scribe: phila

<scribe> scribeNick: phila

Last week's minutes

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

<eparsons> Not there sorry

<kerry> +1

+1

<ScottSimmons> +0

<roba> +0

<joshlieberman> ^me^joshlieberman

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

<jtandy> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html

<billroberts> 0 - missed last call

<AndreaPerego> +1

Patent Call

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

<joshlieberman> +1

-> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Patent Call

<scribe> agenda: www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161019

Change of season

kerry: Spring in the south, autumn in the north
... This willbe the consistent plenary time as defined by UTC

UCR next publication

Vote for next PWD of Use Cases and Requirements http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

kerry: Please have a look at the UCR http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html
... Any comments? I don't think there have been any changes for a while
... We don't have Frans here
... But it was brought to everyone's attention 2 weeks ago and Frans has made it clear that he's happy.

ChrisLittle: I did pass some comments to Frans and he has incorpoirated them
... They w ere minimal typos etc.

jtandy: Thanks to Frans for excellent work!

<AndreaPerego> +1

eparsons: here here

<kerry> +1

<joshlieberman> +!

<joshlieberman> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Frans

RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks for Frans

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<jtandy> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<kerry> +1

PROPOSED: That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will be the last iteration of this document
... That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will be the last iteration of this document http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

<roba> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<kerry> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<billroberts> +1

<jtandy> +1

<jtandy> =1

<jtandy> +1

RESOLUTION: That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will be the last iteration of this document http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

<kerry> cheer!

phila: Just checking, this now becomes R2

ScottSimmons: Confirms that it the next one in the sequence

<ScottSimmons> confirmed that R2 is the next one in the sequence

jtandy: I would be keen to make sure that someone who put effort in for early drafts is still credited

phila: +1 That will happen.

<jtandy> +1

phila: My suggestion is to say Alejandro Llaves, formerly of UPM (early drafts)

<jtandy> +!

BP Next publication

vote for next PWD of Best Practices http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

<eparsons> Kudos to the editors !

<AndreaPerego> +1

kerry: Thanks the editors for all the work to get to this stage. I believe AndreaPerego had a comment

<kerry> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

jtandy: AndreaPerego Put in a suggestion a few days ago and I've only just merged that.

<AndreaPerego> Just an editorial change.

jtandy: I thought that was editorial only so I added it.

<ChrisLittle> +1

phila: You said that there are some current 404 URLs

<kerry> phila: are there 404 urls? they have to go

phila: Can't have 404 links from a doc in /TR space

AndreaPerego: It's code snippets in spatial representation type
... But they're in code snippets, not links

jtandy: So in BP1, you have a code block that isn't an anchor. Just a URL, not a clickable link

phila: e.g. http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/SpatialRepresentationTypeCode/vector
... Asks for status of these

AndreaPerego: These are ISO 19115 code lists, not yet added to the INSPIRE registry. Not yet added but are expected to be

phila: The note makes that clear
... So no problem, thank you

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that I've tried to convert to US-en and the glossary wasn't updated

<AndreaPerego> The note: "The URIs in the example, denoting the spatial representation type, are part of a register yet to be added to the INSPIRE Registry. Therefore, they currently do not resolve.".

jtandy: First of all.. I have attempted to convert to simplified English
... May be some English but feel free to make that change and merge

phila: Ack

jtandy: We hoped to get an update on the glossary. Looks like Bill has been side-tracked
... That will be in the next iteration

<billroberts> Yes, sorry on lack of progress on glossary. I am still happy to do it and will aim to have it ready for the next version

jtandy: Doesn't affect the gestalt of the working draft

kerry: Quick comment - I find this new version of ReSpec doesn't always load properly. Not as stable as the old one

<joshlieberman> +1 same for me

<AndreaPerego> It's the GH rendering, I guess.

phila: Yes, some rendering aspects on GH are a pain with the new stylesheet

PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration

<jtandy> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1!

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1 but change pratice to practice

<kerry> +1

<billroberts> +1

<roba> the doc is looking much better - less detail and more useful scope!

<roba> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<joshlieberman> This best pratice extends [DWBP] best practice Descriptive Metadata.

<billroberts> I had to look that up - US uses 'c' for noun and verb

<billroberts> according to interwebs

RESOLUTION: That the editors draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration

<jtandy> thank you all!

<ScottSimmons> * too late - you are on my list now

<eparsons> Yay !!!

<AndreaPerego> lol

ScottSimmons: Checks that the OGC doc number needs to be appended with R1

eparsons: Now that we have reached this milestone, how are we going to actively solicit more comments?

<joshlieberman> Press release?

eparsons: Might be useful to let the world know it's here.
... Prob not a press release but we need to get more input

ScottSimmons: We would do a press release because it becomes one of our official docs. Apart from that it becomes a question of mentioning it at events etc that we attend
... maybe before our next TC

eparsons: Also ByronCinNZ and I have been talking about getting non geo people involved

<joshlieberman> pose a question to stackoverflow that's addressed by the bp doc...

phila: No press release but homepage news, tweets etc

RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to the BP editors for huge amount of work done

<ChrisLittle> +1 !

<kerry> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<eparsons> +1

<billroberts> +1

<jtandy> (still more work to do)

kerry: And Jeremy, you had a plan for regular new releases

<roba> +1

<jtandy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0071.html

jtandy: If we look at ^^
... One of the things that got us into the situation of not doing a release for nearly a year was that we wanted to get it close to being finished
... So maybe a 4-6 week cycle of sprints might be a good idea. We have identified priorities for the first sprint
... Startying with points raised at INSPIRE
... The adding a consistent example through the doc. Andrea suggested a call for ideas/example
... I think we need to continue to develop section 10 that talks you through how you would make decision wrt DWBP anda SDW-BP
... And we have 2 BPs that we talked about in depth at TPAC, 7 and 4 (global IDs and indexing)
... Need to make sure that what we decided in Lisbon makes it into the doc.

<ChrisLittle> S/wert/wrt/

jtandy: Getting us into the time boxing attitude should help.

<eparsons> +1 to the idea

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me to the proposal.

kerry: I think it's good plan. Prob want to check phil and scott resources for that

<joshlieberman> so it was never actually on Pending Docs?

<AndreaPerego> Is this one, phila? https://github.com/w3c/echidna

<ScottSimmons> the Best Practices document is NOT r1, rather it is 15-107

<ScottSimmons> Josh - yes, the document was reserved, but never posted!

SSN Update

kerry: We've been working through implications of implementation requirements, now have a plan for how to handle that.
... Other big thing to report is that we've invited Armin Haller to chair the SSN sub group meeting

Coverages

billroberts: We had a call last week. There's been decent progress on the docs
... Had some encouraging news of potential implementation of CoverageJSON from Met office and Danh. May even be able to move back to Rec Track

kerry: Minor correction, Danh was talking about RDF Cube implementation, not CovJSON

-> https://www.w3.org/2015/ceo-ld/report CEO-LD Project

roba: JUst to correct your correction. I believe Danh was talking about RDF data Cube descriptions of CoverageJSON so actually using both

Time

kerry: Chris - any update?

ChrisLittle: There's one of these official calls patent claims

phila: Explains W3C patent call process (analogous with OGC Patent Call)

kerry: Chairs have some concerns about progress. Wg won't be happy if we can't complete that work

ChrisLittle: I've spoken to our Skunk Works devs and try to do both SSN and Time in a demo
... Early next year

kerry: Excellent.

ChrisLittle: But we'll need to learn how to do ontologies

kerry: It's easier for Time than for SSN.
... For SSN we hope to be able to use old implementations but for Time, need to look for those old implementations

joshlieberman: This isn't a reference to Time but to SSN. We have a connection to O&M. There's a fairly easy path to implementation evidence by looking for OM evidence

kerry: I'm interested but I;m not sure it will work given what an implementation needs to show.

INSPIRE conference

<AndreaPerego> SDW @ INSPIRE 2016: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SDW_Workshop_@_INSPIRE_2016

eparsons: Andrea gave us the opportunity to speak at the last day at the Barcelona conference. Got about 40 people in the end

<eparsons> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14HR4tM14FsntP_1ylTn4kw1Y00v3emzRYrpWFLHMo7U/edit?usp=sharing

eparsons: I presented some slides

<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Sep/0274.html

eparsons: Clemens did a good job of taking minutes while I rambled on
... First 10 mins, I put the work in context once again, what LD is, how the Wg was formed.
... Then focused on what the INSPIRE community wants (SDI for Europe etc.)
... So one topic was how we can reach out beyond the SDI community.
... Topic of the terminology (spatial thing, feature etc.)
... Don't think we need to redefine our terms, The term feature is OK as a modelling term.
... Majority of the time spent on the 4 topics that Andrea asked us to focus on. BP 7 - HTTP URIs as identifiers
... How would we manage the minting of URIs, managing life cycle.
... Surprised at how little push back there was.
... Likewise, BP 4 (indexing) - audience appreciated that. Dutch cadastre supportive
... The notes give you good overview of what happened.
... How the search engines operate, what SEO means for geo
... BP 8 providing geometries in a usable way - boiled down to encoding and CRSs.
... Acceptance that multiple CRSs prob good, prob boils down to ETRS89, Web Mercator and national CRSs

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about provision of multiple geometries

eparsons: A single encoding might be desirable but I said it's not likely to happen this time.

jtandy: If you're talking about multiple CRSs, one thing we've talked about it giving people multiple representations of the same feature

eparsons: Same feature in multiple representations

jtandy: Case one might need point, another case might need polygon but they're the same feature.

<joshlieberman> The polar regions are a good example of absolutely needing different CRS's - Web Mercator just won't do at all.

eparsons: It's about what encoding and then what CRS do we present
... Remodelling didn't come into it.
... Spatial Semantics of things - again some interest in one ontology to rule them all.
... Most people accecpt this as being a good thing to do.
... Some focus on topological relationships
... But we also recognise non-topological but still spatial relationships.
... Then went through the BPs and asked for priorities

<jtandy> (non-comptutable relationships that don't count as topology?)

<AndreaPerego> Many thanks, Ed (& Clemens)!

eparsons: General agreement but that's prob through lack of prior familiarity

jtandy: Thanks Ed

<joshlieberman> nearness is a computable but non-topological relation

<roba> no worries

kerry: Any other commentws on that?

jtandy: In terms of the docs we've voted to release - timing?

phila: Tuesday

eparsons: Kudos once again to the editors [Applause]

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<roba> bye

<billroberts> thanks, bye

<kerry> bye!

<joshlieberman> bye

<eparsons> Goodnight all