08:42:27 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 08:42:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-sdw-irc 08:42:29 RRSAgent, make logs world 08:42:29 Zakim has joined #sdw 08:42:31 Zakim, this will be SDW 08:42:31 ok, trackbot 08:42:32 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 08:42:32 Date: 15 December 2016 08:42:55 s/Teleconference/F2F Meeting Day 1 08:43:04 chair: Ed 08:43:35 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F5 08:44:00 phila has changed the topic to: F2F Meeting Day 1 08:44:29 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:44:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:44:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-sdw-minutes.html phila 08:52:47 eparsons has joined #sdw 08:53:40 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 08:56:57 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 08:59:08 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw 09:01:18 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 09:01:34 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 09:03:24 present+ DanhLePhuoc 09:06:12 kerry has joined #sdw 09:06:18 Morning all - give us a few minutes to get started 09:06:30 present+ ahaller2 09:06:43 evening! 09:07:34 hello kerry 09:08:00 present+ kerry 09:08:09 laurent_oz has joined #sdw 09:08:34 trackbot, start meeting 09:08:37 RRSAgent, make logs world 09:08:40 Zakim, this will be SDW 09:08:40 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 09:08:40 Date: 15 December 2016 09:08:40 ok, trackbot 09:08:59 Present+ eparsons 09:09:10 RRSAgent, make logs public 09:09:13 LarsG has joined #sdw 09:09:55 morning LarsG 09:10:21 present+ LarsG 09:11:23 present+ kerry 09:13:30 billroberts has joined #sdw 09:13:48 present+ billroberts 09:14:13 Payam has joined #sdw 09:14:25 Chair: eparsons 09:14:27 jtandy has joined #sdw 09:14:48 Linda has joined #sdw 09:14:55 present+ Linda 09:14:56 present+ jtandy 09:15:35 agenda : https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4 09:15:50 no not that one 09:16:22 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F5 09:16:26 that one 09:17:32 HI! 09:17:41 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 09:21:12 [eparsons cwalks through the agenda for today] 09:21:34 [plan to go for curry in evening] 09:21:50 scribe: kerry 09:21:55 scribeNick: kerry 09:22:12 LarsG: sdw 09:22:57 *larsg* sorry "sdw" 09:23:15 topic: coverages 09:23:30 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/ 09:23:30 billroberts: lets make a start on eoqb 09:23:40 s/sdw// 09:24:06 kerry: introduces the EO-QB doc. 09:24:24 ...began at the start of 2016. Editors believe it is close to final, though with a few issues marked 09:24:54 q? 09:24:59 ...the purpose of the document is to show how to do EO data using RDF data cube 09:25:11 ...no new ontologies but discussion of how to use existing ontologies 09:25:25 ...It's supported by an implementation 09:25:48 ...Part of the implementation uses the Discrete Global Grid System which is a forthcoming? perhaps complete standard of the OGC 09:26:08 ...and explains the advantages of using DGGS for earth observation data 09:26:28 ...It doesn't cover all kinds of coverage, but some possible extensions are described. 09:27:20 ...EO-QB makes use of the QB4ST note (to be discussed separately later) - extensions to the RDF Data Cube vocabulary for spatial and temporal dimensions 09:28:00 q+ 09:28:49 ChrisLittle: comments that he has been at a meeting in Taiwan, that the DGGS spec has been bounced by the planning committee of OGC 09:29:30 eparsons: this is related to potential IP issues 09:30:31 present+ laurent_oz 09:30:38 ack next 09:30:49 q? 09:31:17 q+ to reply to jtandy 09:31:23 jtandy: DGGS doesn't appear in the bibliography. It probably should 09:31:51 q++ 09:31:55 ...geometry definitions are all using WKT (possibly because of use of GeoSPARQL use). Is that what we would recommend as a best practice? 09:31:56 ack next 09:31:57 kerry, you wanted to reply to jtandy 09:32:01 ack next 09:32:20 kerry: one of the TO-DOs is to sort out the references. 09:32:51 kerry: WKT - we are aware it is an issue in the best practices, and there is an issue in the EO-QB document that it needs review for alignment with best practices 09:33:18 q+ 09:33:24 jtandy: the BP group/doc is to some extent waiting for good practices that can be documented so a bit chicken and egg 09:33:27 q+ 09:34:01 ack next 09:34:23 q+ 09:34:36 eparsons: what's the realistic schedule for this document to be published and so be a reference for BP? Might be after BP is finalised 09:34:48 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 09:35:00 kerry: this is very close to final. So shouldn't be a problem for use in BP 09:35:12 ...but looking for advice from the BP group! 09:35:23 q+ 09:35:38 +q 09:36:01 ack next 09:36:56 ack next 09:37:01 ack next 09:37:02 q- 09:37:04 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 09:37:45 jtandy: clearly this is a 'practice' (use of WKT). Is EO-QB predicated on use of GeoSPARQL, which would require WKT? 09:37:55 kerry: no it doesn't depend on GeoSPARQL. 09:38:11 q+ 09:38:35 jtandy: could something be added to indicate that other approaches to describing geometry are possible? 09:38:48 kerry: this whole document is an example of how RDF Data Cube can be used for coverage data 09:39:42 ...also uses Time ontology and SSN - so they might need to be finalised 09:39:43 ack next 09:40:18 q- 09:40:53 Payam: what is the intention of this document? Understand that it is an example of best practices. Are you going to link to particular best practices? 09:41:06 ...eg GeoSPARQL is mentioned in BP10 09:41:22 ...which way should the links go? BP to EO-QB or vice versa, or both? 09:41:33 kerry: yes, good idea to link it to the BP doc 09:42:32 kerry: let's add an issue for that 09:44:50 jonblower has joined #sdw 09:44:57 present+ jonblower 09:45:18 Struggling to hear a little bit - someone is typing close to the mic ;-) 09:46:28 kerry: aimed at linked data users, but also particularly at RDF Data Cube (hence statistical agency) audience 09:46:35 hi Jon! 09:46:38 q? 09:47:00 q+ to check sotd 09:47:13 ack next 09:47:14 jtandy, you wanted to check sotd 09:47:47 jtandy: could do with adding some text on the status of the document and planned changes before finalising 09:48:28 ...in the section at the top 'Status of the Document' 09:49:38 kerry: to confirm - would this be a condition of going to FWPD? 09:49:41 jtandy: yes 09:50:04 +q 09:50:10 ...it should say 'there are relationships with other deliverables from SDWWG. Over the coming 3-4 months we expect to resolve these and update the note" 09:50:39 ack next 09:50:47 jtandy: happy with a vote subject to that condition 09:50:56 Payam: happy to work with kerry on the relation with BP 09:51:08 action: Payam to work with kerry to get BPs and eo-qb aligned 09:51:09 Created ACTION-229 - Work with kerry to get bps and eo-qb aligned [on Payam Barnaghi - due 2016-12-22]. 09:52:41 Proposed : That the document is the FPWD with modifications in terms of status are made 09:52:48 +1 09:52:51 +1 09:52:53 +1 09:52:54 +1 09:52:54 +1 09:52:55 +1 09:53:09 +1 09:53:14 +1 09:53:16 +1 09:53:17 Resolved : That the document is the FPWD with modifications in terms of status are made 09:53:32 +1 09:53:47 bill says thanks and claps 09:53:55 topic: qb4st 09:54:15 work primarily by rob atkinson who is on holiday 09:55:34 kerry: as well as RDF Data Cube, it also draws on other existing ontologies 09:55:43 ...it's quite small. Only about 10 properties and classes 09:55:52 ...it's closely related to the Best Practices 09:55:54 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/qb4st/ 09:56:07 ...references GeoSPARQL and there is an issue about how to interlink wiht that and other BPs 09:56:19 +q 09:56:49 ChrisLittle: qb is very generic and does not help with dimensions 09:57:00 ChrisLittle: I'm very supportive of the work. QB is very generic and doesn't have anything about coordinates in a dimension. Current QB dimensions don't have ordering for example 09:57:02 ... i am very supportive of this singling out of some dimensions 09:57:31 ...also supporting partitioning of dimensions 09:57:42 ack next 09:58:03 Payam: is anyone using this? 09:58:05 payam asks if there are any groups using this? 09:58:15 (sorry kerry I'll hand scribing back to you now!) 09:58:35 chris: maybe not for rdf ata but for the metadata describing data 09:58:44 payam; can we add this to the doc? 09:59:17 billroberts: similar to eoqb, there are a few known issues but reasnably well advanced 09:59:18 A useful reference in this space http://meaningfulspatialstatistics.org/ 09:59:42 billroberts: inviting conditions on the vote to publish? 09:59:48 q+ 09:59:53 ...things that can be fixed up aftewards 09:59:56 ack next 10:00:17 Linda: notes respec and html errors 10:00:41 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 10:00:52 Proposed that http://w3c.github.io/sdw/qb4st/ becomes FPWD with html errors corrected 10:00:54 +1 10:00:56 +1 10:00:57 +1 10:00:59 +1 10:01:00 +1 10:01:02 +1 10:01:04 +1 10:01:05 +1 10:01:09 +1 10:01:09 q+ 10:01:11 +1 10:01:20 ack next 10:02:01 Resolved that http://w3c.github.io/sdw/qb4st/ becomes FPWD with html errors corrected 10:02:22 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/ 10:02:33 billroberts: well done Rob 10:02:39 topic: covjson 10:03:04 effort lef by Jon Blower and Maaik Reichart a reading 10:03:08 can't hear anything over typing 10:03:21 s/lef/led/ 10:03:32 ...for web pages and web applications in particular 10:04:20 .. more than the other docs there is significant uncertainly around relationship of thsi not to the spec (is this it , or is it about it?) 10:04:32 ...jon has discussed with phil and scott 10:04:59 jonblower: [havng trouble hearing over typicng] 10:05:21 s/havng/having 10:05:24 ....this was started in MELODIES project before we joined the activity of the wg 10:05:29 s/typicng/typing 10:05:45 ...so we started to develop the spec elsewhere 10:06:05 .. but now in the wg it is not clear how to express out outputs in and after the WG 10:06:20 ...is a data format based on JSON for coverage data 10:06:38 is a format for web servers to exchange with web apps 10:06:48 for coverage data in rich web applications 10:06:58 as data analysis and visualisation can be done in the browser 10:07:22 ....some realtion to rdf --- a brief discussion on how to convert cov json to rdf in section [missed] 10:07:46 ...says how to convert the json to rdf triples, mainly focusing on the metadata rather than the data 10:07:54 ...useful if you are into rdf 10:08:17 s/realtion/relation/ 10:08:18 Q+ 10:08:21 ....that conversion is to an rdf structure that is not standardised, we just made this up at the time for a poc 10:08:35 ..so is only an intersting expt at present -- needs rounding off 10:08:42 s/[missed]/2.6/ 10:08:52 ...so as bill was saying 10:09:03 s/intersting/interesting 10:09:12 ...the our "NOTE" on git hub is onformative, does not contain the spec itself 10:09:20 quesiton is whther the spec should indeed be in there 10:09:34 ...so that it is formalised and can be pointed to 10:09:42 ...althogh a note, not a rec 10:09:58 ....but this is a prblem from a maintenance point of view 10:10:06 s/informative/informative/ 10:10:18 ... so we won't be updating the spec any morein the note when the WG is over 10:10:42 ...we could put the spec in the note and make a big message to point to the latest version eslewhere from the Note 10:10:47 ...taking advice on this 10:11:15 ...scott Simmons said the standard incubator might be a way to take forward 10:11:27 q+ 10:11:28 ack next 10:11:31 ...important that it can be taken forward and is not forzen here 10:12:03 ChrisLittle: if sdw stops next year OGC has a few ways of going on with this 10:12:26 ...when we discussed this before you had single dimension in the json 10:12:39 ...has this gone forward to multidimensions? 10:12:55 jonblower: no, because json does not support 10:13:00 ack next 10:13:27 action jonblower to add a section on multi-dimension arrays 10:13:28 Created ACTION-230 - Add a section on multi-dimension arrays [on Jon Blower - due 2016-12-22]. 10:13:33 +q 10:13:57 billroberts: important to make sure spec is free of patent issues and will never be encumbered 10:14:18 ... this is a benefit of brining the spec into this WD document 10:14:44 ack next 10:14:49 ...iprecedent for specs to evolve after publication but is a question hhow to steer readers to the right place 10:15:18 eparsons: either standards body has mechanisms, that should not be a concern 10:16:00 ...the more fundamental question is do you want the note to identify the problem and context and have the spec developed elsewhere? this may be the best way 10:16:16 ...and the actual normative part in another w3c or ogc activity? 10:17:12 jonblower: that is where I was thinking, but i am aware that this WG has a lot of activities and there has not been a lot of technical discussion on this work inp articular 10:17:31 ...so for advancing the standard a more specilist grop might be useful to drive it forward 10:18:00 ... so it might be more accurate to say this group has motivated and driven the work but the spec goes elsewhere for now 10:18:04 q+ 10:18:17 ... I think Phil would like the spec as part of the note 10:18:19 Q+ 10:18:34 ...my problem is lots of versions in different places so the community knows which one to get 10:18:42 ack next 10:18:43 ...that is normative 10:19:25 jtandy: i think that copies littered around the web is a good thing, i think the scrutiny of the group may not be strong enough 10:19:41 ...so I like linking to it but will it be a durable link? 10:19:53 ...and we need a licence statment in the note 10:20:09 Q-- 10:20:15 https://covjson.org/spec/ 10:20:16 Q- 10:20:20 jonblower: is now living on the covjson.org website that is durable 10:20:46 ...can see advantages in going forward through the new stnadards incubator process 10:20:58 ...which gives you a github place maybe 10:21:19 the durable url exists but maybe the future standards approach affects this 10:21:42 jtandy: as long as that durable standard forwards to the right place durability this will be useful 10:21:46 +1 10:22:02 billroberts: cc licence applies -- can put this in the note 10:22:32 ...phila said there is no patent statement and no warranty about patent-free-ness -- we need to find a way to warant that 10:22:43 s/warant/warrant/ 10:22:58 eparsons: don't worry unduly -- this can be done 10:23:34 jonblower: my understanding is that we cannot make that assertion --- but we can by copying the spec into the doc 10:23:54 eparsons: but is that a big concern for this note? 10:23:58 q+ 10:24:10 q+ to speak on patent issue 10:24:24 jonblower: need to clarify 10:24:40 ack next 10:24:41 kerry, you wanted to speak on patent issue 10:24:42 ... conclusion would be we keep the scope of hte note as informative/motivating 10:26:07 kerry : different perspective - phila not keen on a note that is just informative.. 10:27:08 Q+ 10:27:16 billroberts : We need phila to clarify - saw advantages to having spec but not as strong an opinion as suggusted 10:27:35 jonblower: note is informative anyway 10:27:46 ...but I do unerstand the point about the patent 10:28:26 ack next 10:28:33 ...if it comes to it i am happy to copy in to spec with a big note to say that it should not be used but to look elsewhere 10:28:42 ChrisLittle: [soft] 10:28:58 eparsons: chrislittle does not like hypertext 10:29:30 jonblower: is 5 pages or so -- adding the spec will quadruple the lenght which makes it a bit harder to read 10:29:43 ... but as a deal breaker am happy to put spec copy in 10:30:16 ... but note is informative so not a great place for a spec but phila was happy with this 10:30:30 eparsons: at next coverages call or what to resolve this? 10:30:53 billroberts: we cannot vote on this until that is resolved as it is a significant issue 10:31:19 ... need to develop a concret proposal for this and then bring it back for a vote in a telecon in the new year 10:31:39 ...late Jan or so 10:31:46 jonblower: agrees 10:31:52 action billroberts to discuss with phila et al to bring back for a vote at a plenary call in the new year 10:31:52 Created ACTION-231 - Discuss with phila et al to bring back for a vote at a plenary call in the new year [on Bill Roberts - due 2016-12-22]. 10:32:10 billroberts: two out of three ain't bad! 10:32:44 eparsons: working out the way to make this accessible is hte right thing to do -- useful discussion 10:32:57 eparsons: thansk job 10:33:02 thanks very much Jon 10:33:03 s/job/jon/ 10:33:04 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Coverages_in_Linked_Data 10:33:25 jonblower: [returns the thanks] 10:34:00 Payam: can we add explanation how this approach would be used and why --- to distinguish from the others 10:34:00 Q+ 10:34:18 eparsons: yes, so why do we have 3 solutions? what is the rationale? 10:34:32 jtandy: qb4st is not separate, really a complement 10:34:33 q+ 10:34:34 q+ 10:34:47 +q 10:34:53 ...differnt communities use different tech cnages to achieve differnt outcomes 10:35:00 ack next 10:35:05 ...recordnises the polarised nature of our community 10:35:34 ack next 10:35:36 ChrisLittle: also [quiet] layered approach.. specific encodings.. justified 10:35:44 q+ please 10:35:55 q+ 10:36:02 q- please 10:36:37 +1 to Separate QB and QB4ST 10:37:02 ack next 10:37:36 billroberts: agress eo-qb and qb4st should stay separate 10:38:05 ...we have two differnt approaches becuase there are multiple ways 10:38:13 ...the web has many user communities 10:38:24 ack next 10:38:46 ...with different subsets of people who want to put data on the web, we just need to say who needs what 10:39:03 Payam: [mised first question] 10:39:14 ...are there any other solutions we need to refernce 10:39:18 q+ 10:39:24 ack next 10:39:50 jtandy: (summarises from eo-qb) 10:40:01 ack next 10:40:06 ... it is not proposing storing data in a triple store -- this is impoertnat 10:40:55 q+ 10:40:57 q+ 10:41:07 ack next 10:41:16 Q+ 10:41:47 jonblower: do need to link to the cov world of the ogc and we need to cover off on this 10:41:52 ack next 10:41:54 ...peter Baumann might help 10:42:18 eparsons: what is the mechanism for us to provide this coveage context overview/ 10:42:36 .... how do we make sure we do not give the impression this is all there is? 10:42:43 ...where does this go? 10:42:51 ack next 10:43:06 q+ 10:43:15 ack next 10:43:23 ChrisLittle: robatkinson jhas a useful bit in the qb4st doc --- cut and paste to other docs might do? 10:43:38 billroberts: agrees should go in each doc 10:43:50 jtandy: could write once and link to it from each 10:43:59 [general agreement] 10:44:11 I'm afraid I won't be rejoining you as I have other meetings, but have fun and thanks for all the discussion 10:44:30 eparsons: break until 11:00 am GMT 11:00:37 s/jhas/has/ 11:00:50 s/coveage/coverage/ 11:01:18 s/impoertant/important/ 11:02:31 we are back almost 11:02:52 * Laurent waving to everyone 11:03:06 billroberts has joined #sdw 11:03:14 Hello laurent_oz you are welcome 11:03:27 would you like to say hello 11:03:40 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 11:03:40 * Yes, so I can test 11:04:20 ahaller2_ has joined #sdw 11:04:56 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:05:31 scibe? 11:05:39 s/scibe/scribe/ 11:06:01 scribe: Payam 11:06:07 scribenick: Payam 11:06:32 This session: SSN 11:06:32 topic: general feedback on WD published on Monday: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/; units of measure treatment and values; Sample as subclass of FeatureOfInterest; SKOS use in SOSA? 11:06:39 topic: SSN 11:06:43 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 11:06:59 Present+ 11:07:11 ahaller2_ working draft was published on Monday; there have been some editorial changes since and some additional changes 11:07:13 present? 11:07:18 present+ jtandy 11:07:46 ahaller2_ changes: used a different tool to generate the ontology document (name of the software?) 11:07:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:07:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 11:08:31 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 11:08:34 ahaller2_ other changes: changes to SSN ontology; the major change is the SSN dolce alignment is included 11:09:12 ahaller2_ new ssn to dolce and new ssn to the old ssn; SOSA core ontology has been also included into SSN 11:09:59 ahaller2_ alignments to PROV and alignment to O&M: placeholders have been added but they are not documented yet 11:11:02 q+ 11:11:09 ahaller2_ there are also many issues that are included in the SSN document; some don't have a number (please add the numbers); ahaller2_ will fix these 11:11:52 ahaller2_ we need to discuss treatment of the values and also samples and possible solutions (linking to SOSA core and sub-class realtionships) 11:13:08 ahaller2_ other ontologies in the core; Dublin core is included but not many others; SKOS possibly won't be included (there seem to be a discussion about this in the mailing list) 11:13:13 ack next 11:14:11 q+ 11:14:14 kerry : there have been people who have not been editor(s) of the documents and have been issuing PULL requests- ONLY editors should do this 11:14:53 kerry: is unhappy and please be careful :-) 11:15:13 kerry, do you mean creating pull requests or accepting them? 11:15:29 ack next 11:16:03 ahaller2_ : no one made any pushes to the main brunch on github 11:17:50 OK 11:18:12 kerry means accepting pull requests if you are not an editor 11:18:33