08:05:40 jtandy has joined #sdw 08:28:15 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 08:33:51 eparsons has joined #sdw 08:34:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 08:34:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 08:35:35 trackbot, start meeting 08:35:38 RRSAgent, make logs world 08:35:38 Zakim has joined #sdw 08:35:39 Zakim, this will be SDW 08:35:39 ok, trackbot 08:35:40 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 08:35:40 Date: 16 December 2016 08:49:34 Morning All... 08:50:04 present+ eparsons 08:53:06 present+ AndreaPerego 08:53:58 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 08:56:11 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:56:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 08:58:12 jtandy has joined #sdw 08:58:56 present+ 08:59:02 present+ jtandy 09:00:03 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 09:01:18 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw 09:01:20 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 09:01:33 present+ ClemensPortele 09:01:48 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 09:02:00 kerry has joined #sdw 09:02:02 present+ DanhLePhuoc 09:02:07 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 09:02:50 LarsG has joined #sdw 09:02:53 kerry has changed the topic to: SDW F2F Meeting Day 2 09:03:34 phila has joined #sdw 09:03:51 Linda has joined #sdw 09:03:59 present+ Lidna 09:04:04 present+ Linda 09:04:06 s/Teleconference/F2F Day 2/ 09:04:08 present+ 09:04:24 present+ LarsG 09:04:52 present+ ClausStadler 09:04:57 chair: Ed 09:05:00 present+ kerry 09:05:05 present+ ahaller2 09:05:06 Topic: Best Practices 09:05:37 jtandy: We need to head for a vote on the BP doc at 10:45 (1:40 from now) 09:05:40 scribe: phila 09:05:44 scribeNick: phila 09:05:49 SimonCox has joined #sdw 09:05:53 jtandy: So I want to go through the issues before then. 09:06:03 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 09:06:09 ... Identify what needs to be done 09:06:14 What is password for Webex please? 09:06:15 phila: I'll do the diff 09:06:21 present# 09:06:21 jtandy: /me sdw 09:06:36 present+ ByronCinNZ 09:07:10 jtandy: Use of DCAT is an issue that has been discussed 09:07:43 present+ SimonCox 09:07:44 jtandy: I'd like to begin discussion on one of Clemens' issues yesterday - how rich models in GML Application Schema can be found into the way we're proposing. 09:08:03 jtandy: Where are the OGC GML community, RDF-SemWeb and Web/JSON communities 09:08:10 ... JSON-LD has hte potential to bridge some of that 09:08:25 ... those conversations will be helpful for our readaers when deciding what to do next. 09:08:26 s/hte/the/ 09:08:37 ... In 2nd session today, I want to take on the list of planned stuff. 09:08:59 eparsons: The stuff before the vote, is that necessary before the vote? 09:09:06 jtandy: Juts the first one 09:09:13 ... People might be calling in for the vote 09:09:28 s/readaers/readers/ 09:09:35 jtandy: So we need to go through... 09:09:59 s/Juts/Just/ 09:10:18 Topic: Issue 218 09:10:28 jtandy: Pull request 453 09:11:33 -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/453 relevant PR 09:12:03 jtandy: Bart had put in something to BP4... 09:12:10 ... the spatial data indexing one 09:12:30 ... Some proposals about how you might use R2RML to auto generate your RDF. I deleted it because I was over zealous 09:12:53 ... Seeing an RDF bias in the doc. But I think it probably is a useful tool for generting the HTMl content from the underlying data 09:13:02 ... But PR 453 there are also other changes. 09:13:06 q+ 09:13:17 q+ 09:13:26 ... So I'm suggesting that we hold over to the next release for the end of January - effectively 4 weeks away. 09:13:34 ack s 09:13:39 Also see pull request #451 (which is a very small addition - link to official epsg registry 09:13:50 SimonCox: There's another PR from myself but it's tiny 09:14:17 ... But it riases the issue of making suggestions through official channels, They can easily get left behind if not acted on quickly 09:14:30 jtandy: Your PR is 451 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/451 09:14:40 jtandy: I assumed your PR was related to SSN 09:14:57 SimonCox: So that's part of the prob. I should have prefixed it with 'BP' 09:15:16 jtandy: If I look at your commit... would you be content to hold that the next release in January? 09:15:35 SimonCox: My concern is that the ref to EPSG is missing 09:15:45 SimonCox: It's just an addition to a paragraph. 09:15:53 jtandy: I'm happy to take that now. 09:15:57 SimonCox: It's teeny 09:16:01 +1 09:16:05 +1 09:16:11 Apologies for not prefixing my pull request 'BP' 09:16:14 ack next 09:16:15 +1 09:16:19 [NOTUC] 09:16:21 +1 09:16:29 jtandy: PR 451 is merged 09:16:38 q+ 09:16:43 ack k 09:16:57 kerry: Back with PR 453 09:17:21 kerry: Bart's one... it's one of those tiny things I'd like to adopt. 09:17:25 jtandy: Which commit is that? 09:17:26 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/453/commits/30ea668402f383fff035dc8ee4604ca45b1bace7 09:17:52 Clearly pull-requests should be very granular 09:17:54 kerry: It's a new image 09:18:12 jtandy: I'm happy to accept that commit. I'll figure out how to get that commit in without the other stuff in the PR 09:18:13 q+ 09:18:22 ack next 09:18:23 ack me 09:18:27 Payam has joined #sdw 09:19:12 phila: How do we avoid asking editors to unpick multi-commit pull requests 09:19:19 q+ 09:19:23 jtandy: Try and make one PR for commit 09:19:23 ack next 09:20:22 SimonCox: Clarifying... PRs should be at the granularity of the issues to be considered. But it means that each PR needs to be on the re-based doc 09:20:28 ... otherwise they stack anyway. 09:20:36 jtandy: It depends if they're in the same locatiuon in the doc. 09:20:50 ... If you focus on a section, you should be able to merge them independently. 09:20:52 ack k 09:21:01 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 09:21:07 kerry: I want to extend Jeremy's proposal a little. 09:21:07 laurent_oz has joined #sdw 09:21:11 Present+ 09:21:22 ... This isn't only a BP issue. We've had the same with the SSN doc. 09:21:25 Present+ 09:21:27 ... Same argument applies 09:21:33 s/locatiuon/location/ 09:21:44 kerry: Please do things specifically in your commits and PRs 09:21:49 RRSAgent, make logs public 09:22:17 jtandy: If there are merge conflicts, as an editor, I'm going to bounce your pull request, unless it's my fault for leaving it for so long. 09:22:23 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:22:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:22:25 q? 09:22:43 jtandy: Did you have your say about Bart's pull request, Kerry? 09:23:00 ... Largely we're content to wait materially 4 weeks for his edits to come into the doc. 09:23:28 Topic: Commit https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/456 09:23:41 ClemensPortele: This is very minor, it can wait. 09:24:01 jtandy: I'd like to record thanks to everyone who has made pull requests and contributions 09:24:11 Topic: Order of the Best Practices 09:24:27 jtandy: We're talking about the order of the BPs. the Metadata one comes first. 09:24:53 ... We said that once we had the BPs we want, we'll probably shuffle them into the order that we want. Expect a Post-It note session 09:25:02 q+ to talk about Bp numbering 09:25:08 ack next 09:25:09 phila, you wanted to talk about Bp numbering 09:25:34 jtandy: Are you happy for me to update the StoD section to sday that numbers may change 09:25:38 [NOTUC] 09:25:57 s/sday/say/ 09:26:22 ack me 09:26:42 DWBP BP numbers changed at CR, I need to check them. 09:27:10 action: phila to check references to DWBP are all correct, based on PR numbering 09:27:10 Created ACTION-237 - Check references to dwbp are all correct, based on pr numbering [on Phil Archer - due 2016-12-23]. 09:27:30 jtandy: No vote needed to make those changes 09:27:55 jtandy: So Phil will add the diff 09:28:11 phila: Yes, but not the change history section that is up to the editors. 09:28:25 jtandy: Does anyone have any other issues that prevent us going for a release vote? 09:28:26 q? 09:28:28 No issues from my side. 09:28:42 [NOTUC] 09:29:27 jtandy: So we're content to release but we'll do the formal vote at the time we agreed (10:45Z) 09:30:10 ClausStadler1 has joined #sdw 09:30:12 Topic: DCAT/BP1 09:30:37 jtandy: This relates to BP1 09:30:46 ByronCinNZ: I had a conversation with ClemensPortele on this 09:30:54 ... It just needs a little mre discussion I think. 09:30:57 ClausStadler1 has left #sdw 09:31:05 s/mre/more/ 09:31:06 ClausStadler1 has joined #sdw 09:31:21 ... Main thing that guides my thinking... the full 19115 metadata cf. more compact CKAN like metadata 09:31:38 ... The issue there is, don't lose the full richness. 09:32:06 ... SDI is presented as a monolithic thing which is not very friendly. DCAT seems a nice way around that. Calling DCAT an exo-skeleton. 09:32:15 ... It's the data that you put onto the Web. 09:32:34 ... We don't have manhy examples of this in the wild, which is an issue. 09:32:54 ... the BP says we need the full metadata; it needs to be discoverable. DCAT would be an example, but not perhaps the only one 09:33:02 s/manhy/many/ 09:33:25 q? 09:33:29 ClemensPortele: We discussed the significance of it being the first BP 09:33:53 present+ laurent_oz 09:33:57 ... mostly what it lists is DCAT. I'm not questioning the tech/approach. I don't have experience of DCAT. 09:34:23 ... But it's one approach. ISO19115 has good and bad. We have DCAT, we have the shcema.org for datasets https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg4datasets/ 09:34:48 q+ 09:34:50 ... we're giving a preference for DCAT and it's currently not the top dog. It's top in government data portals 09:35:01 ... I'm asking for balance, not exclusion. 09:35:03 ack e 09:35:06 ack next 09:35:12 eparsons: +1 to Clemens 09:35:35 ... DCAT is a valid tech but it's one of many. For now it's wrong to say it's a BP. 09:35:38 q+ 09:35:43 q+ to comment on DCAT 09:35:47 q+ 09:35:57 byron: I'd like to get at what's behind DCAT 09:36:13 q+ 09:36:19 q+ 09:36:21 ... Exposing it the Web in different ways 09:36:43 Byron: ISO 19115 isn't in the same category as DCAT 09:36:49 ... DCAT can wrtap around it and expose it. 09:37:01 ... There are the folk systems, CKAN etc. 09:37:18 s/wrtap/wrap/ 09:37:22 jtandy: Thanks Byron 09:37:44 jtandy: I think what Byron said - where you've got good metadata, use it 09:37:56 Byron: yes, don't lose it 09:37:56 ack next 09:37:57 phila, you wanted to comment on DCAT 09:37:59 ack P 09:38:00 +1 09:38:28 phila : Recent workshop on DCAT... 09:39:33 -> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ 09:39:44 phila: Agree with Byron use ISO if you have it, schema.org if you want to appear on web search.. 09:39:57 phila: You need different metadata for different purposes. 09:40:11 ... Use schema.org for discovery, 19115 for SDIs etc. 09:40:20 phila: different metadata approaches meet different community needs 09:40:38 q? 09:40:59 ack next 09:41:16 AndreaPerego: I agree with Byron 09:41:31 ... The use of DCAT for enabling cross-domain, cross sector interop 09:41:50 ... DCAT is mainly adopted by government data catalogues. But also potential for use outside that. 09:42:00 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 09:42:02 ... DCAT is extensible. 09:42:35 ... The work around GeoDCAT-AP are not just used in the public sector but people using geospatial data 09:42:59 ... I can also report on work in one of our catalogues. We have spatial data, bilogical, statistical data 09:43:16 ... trying to use DCAT for providing consistent implementation of research data as well 09:43:34 ... The scope of the WG is important. Lots of possible solutions 09:43:37 q? 09:44:29 E.g., about using DCAT for multi-disciplinary research data: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/SDSVoc16_paper_27 09:44:31 jtandy: I think you said - the advantage with DCAT is its extensibility. So GeoDCAT can support spatial, other Aps can add their bits in too. 09:44:41 ... so DCAT provides a home for lots of different metadata 09:45:22 jtandy: I think this is what Byron was saying. One of the advantages of DCAT is that it allows you to bring together metadata from different domains. 09:45:44 ack next 09:45:51 +q 09:45:53 eparsons: Yes, what are the approaches for making the metadata itself more accessible on the Web without throwing anything away 09:45:59 q+ to talk about DCAT structure 09:46:26 Linda: What I got from the SDSVoc workshop was that metadata serves different purposes. For spatial, the most important is the coverage. Where is the data about. 09:46:45 ... If it's about your area of interest then you need more, things like resolution. The BPs could reflect that better 09:47:13 ... Whewn you talk about metadata for discovery then you should use schema.org and then DCAT or similar for judging if the data is useful - 09:47:16 ClemensPortele: Evaluation 09:47:22 ack next 09:47:32 s/Whewn/When/ 09:47:38 +1 to Linda. SDW BP can help address the current gaps in DCAT and existing vocs. 09:47:48 Payam: I agree with this discussion. We shoujld also give attention to dynamic data. We need to think about streams etc. 09:47:48 ack P 09:47:48 phila, you wanted to talk about DCAT structure 09:48:01 +1 to Payam dynamic feeds are important 09:48:13 jtandy: I personally don't distinguish between a static dataset and a stream. We'd create a landing page 09:48:23 ... then an API etc. 09:48:28 s/shoujld/should/ 09:49:27 s/Whewn/When/ 09:49:35 q+ 09:49:40 ack next 09:49:40 jtandy: We should perhaps mention that in the BP doc 09:50:00 Q+ 09:50:05 phila: DCAT has been successful. Needs extension exactly as being discussed here. Main contribution os difference between dataset anda distribution 09:50:24 AndreaPerego: You can bring spatial data.. you don't need to model everything 09:50:27 q+ 09:50:52 ... The trade off between providing a full representation, 1-1 mapping etc. 09:51:16 ... Don't need to move to another way of saying the same thing. On the Web Platform, the use cases are different so provide different metadata. 09:51:24 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:51:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:51:31 ack next 09:52:32 q? 09:52:46 ChrisLittle: Following from Payam. ISO 19115... distinguishes between streaming and static 09:52:57 +q 09:53:08 ack next 09:53:09 jtandy: I think schema.org has dataFeed as sub class of dataset 09:53:37 thanks LarsG !! 09:53:44 https://schema.org/DataFeed 09:53:48 ClemensPortele: I think I started that discussion. I agree with what has been said If we provide this context, classify where schema.org and DCAT have their uses, that will greatly benefit the BP 09:53:51 ack next 09:53:52 ... and will address my issue 09:54:11 +1 09:54:35 Payam: If I use this phone, I can publish data from my phone, most of the data we talk about are large, but there are lots of small bits of data. 09:54:52 ... from IoT devices etc. Do we tell people the best way to publish those small amounts of data. 09:55:25 eparsons: I don't think we specifically address that use case. But by saying publish as graularly as you can - it allows you to build those sorts of applications. 09:55:41 ... We have to recognse what the user community is trying to do, we can't address all communities. 09:56:20 ... We're saying if you're coming from an SDI, this is what you need to so. And what we're saying is how to make data more structured. 09:56:43 q? 09:56:49 jtandy: telling people how to publish streaming data is out of scope I think for us - but it needs doings 09:56:58 phila: (another WG... talk to Dave Raggett) 09:57:40 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 09:58:07 Topic: Crowdsourcing 09:58:53 ByronCinNZ: We have a bit of work going on... one of the AU/ZN collaboration is around crowd sourced data. 09:58:59 ... The tough thing is trust 09:59:06 ... and how do you model that and trust it 09:59:22 q+ to talk about DQV 09:59:39 jtandy: Issues of trust and quality get rolled together. But they're two separate things 09:59:52 eparsons: What have you come up with? 10:00:02 ByronCinNZ: I have some stuff I can throew in from different places. 10:00:18 ... The trust element is about the person/instrument submitting the data. 10:00:35 ... You can qualify the trust on various axes 10:01:00 ... On the fact of what needs to be captured. If two people submit the same item, can you detect that? 10:01:06 q+ 10:01:15 ... Mostly it's on the submitters 10:01:26 ack next 10:01:27 phila, you wanted to talk about DQV 10:01:28 ... I could get some examples and input 10:01:38 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ Data Quality Vocab 10:02:20 q? 10:02:24 ack next 10:02:25 q+ 10:02:28 q+ 10:02:41 Payam: These are all interesting and relevant. Fukishima was a good example 10:02:54 ... People were reporting very different readings from the same locations. 10:03:02 q+ 10:03:14 ... Maybe we should publish info on how to publish and calibrate their data 10:03:20 ...Is that part of the BPs 10:03:27 ChrisLittle: The data might be highly variable 10:03:36 ... it's not wrong. Rainfall is very noisy 10:03:59 jtandy: Publication of radiation data after Fukishima is a good one 10:04:25 eparsons: Things that are close to each other are expected to be similar - that's a spatial data phenomenon. 10:04:37 ack next 10:04:37 jtandy: I ask the Wg whether we should go to crowd sourcing 10:04:51 Linda: I was going to say that this BP is one of the most important ones. 10:05:09 ... I see it as ... use cases like navigation data sharing is a great use case 10:05:20 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 10:05:24 ... For me it didn't have a very high priority - that's why it's at the end. 10:05:26 q+ 10:05:33 ... I'm feeling that most f us do want to include it. 10:05:36 ack next 10:05:38 q+ 10:05:48 ... And if you do, please take charge of this BP 10:06:03 jtandy: The crowdsourcing one is currently under 'other' - where else might it go? Metadata? 10:06:14 ... We need to give it a home. It doesn't have one yet. 10:06:43 ... If we scope it to just publishing spatial data from the crowd, rather than anything else that might happen further down the stream? 10:06:51 ... It's not the top priority. 10:06:52 ack next 10:07:12 eparsons: I don't think we should be tallking about this at all. It's specifically spatial. 10:07:21 s/It's/It's not/ 10:07:41 eparsons: It's the same as the current discussion about fake news. It's a much broader topic than just spatial data. 10:08:02 q? 10:08:02 ... The whole issue of provenance, quality, reliability - it's more than we can take on. 10:08:12 jtandy: I like strong chairing... 10:08:13 ack next 10:08:18 Payam: I agree 10:08:42 ... It's good to keep this though. It's good to tell them that they need to be aware of trust data. 10:08:48 ack next 10:08:50 q+ 10:08:55 ack next 10:08:57 Payam: We should just say be aware, without trying to solve the whole thing. 10:09:06 +q 10:09:24 ClausStadler1: I went to a project kick off recently. If there was a BP it would be usefeul. The project has only just started 10:09:43 q? 10:09:51 ... we can encourage the publication of all the provenance data for trust evaluation 10:09:57 q+ 10:10:04 .. Also relevant for crowd source data is privacy 10:10:15 q+ to talk about horizontal review 10:10:20 ack ByronCinNZ 10:10:40 ByronCinNZ: This is a good conversation. Maybe we need to flip this on its head. Do we have anywhere else that we talk about provenance? 10:11:01 ack next 10:11:52 Payam: What Claus said reminded me... there's a BBC programme about Weather Watchers... BBC forecast has become bad thanks to people sending in crowd sourced data 10:12:12 q? 10:12:12 q+ 10:12:28 ack next 10:12:31 ClausStadler1: Crowd sourcing platforms, Amazon Turk etc, might be mentioned 10:13:06 jtandy: Summarising... we recognise that it's not the broader issue of crowd sourtcing and trust that we're concerned about, but that when we publish spatial data wew include metadata that indicates where it comes from. 10:13:09 ... We say this in BP1 10:13:26 ... It may only be one tweet, but you need to capture where it came from. 10:13:30 eparsons: That's true of all data. 10:13:35 jtandy: It's one line. 10:13:41 q? 10:13:50 ... I'm suggesting that we include a crowd source example in the metadata BP 10:13:57 ... rather than havae a BP on crowd sourcing 10:14:17 ... That doesn't mean we're not interested in what ByronCinNZ is talking about, just that it's stretching our scope? 10:14:27 ack p 10:14:27 phila, you wanted to talk about horizontal review 10:14:31 jtandy: What do we think about a crowd sourcing example in the BP 1 example 10:15:23 ack next 10:15:35 phila: Talked about need for horizontal reviewsa 10:15:52 Linda: We mention provenance in BP2, and in the intro section 13.1 10:16:12 ... There's a reference to DWBP where provenance was described. So it's a more general data on the Web topic 10:16:26 ... Having said that, we can include an example of crowd sourcing. 10:17:04 eparsons: So back to Jeremy's suggestion of using a crowd sourcing example as a way to say we're interested. But I don't think there's anything different about spatial data on this. 10:17:17 ... There's a whole space that we haven't touched on. Policy and legal issues, PII etc. 10:17:21 ... Thayt's a scary place 10:17:23 +1 there is nothing spatial about crowsdsourceing --- but we do have a use case.... 10:17:33 ... Might get into very deep problems 10:18:12 phila: Quotes from DWBP Intro "Not all data and metadata should be shared openly, however. Security, commercial sensitivity and, above all, individuals' privacy need to be taken into account. It is for data publishers to determine policy on which data should be shared and under what circumstances. Data sharing policies are likely to assess the exposure risk and determine the appropriate security measures to be taken to protect sensitive data, such as secure 10:18:12 authentication and authorization." 10:18:35 jtandy: We have a scope section in our doc - section 3 10:18:44 jtandy: Could you write a paragraph, Ed? 10:19:28 action eparsons to create a paragraph for section 3 to highlight that privacy issues etc. are particularly important for crowd sourced data but it's not specifically spatial data and so we dopn't cover it in detail. 10:19:28 Created ACTION-238 - Create a paragraph for section 3 to highlight that privacy issues etc. are particularly important for crowd sourced data but it's not specifically spatial data and so we dopn't cover it in detail. [on Ed Parsons - due 2016-12-23]. 10:19:34 q+ 10:19:44 ack next 10:20:05 action: eparsons to write a bit on being warying of crowdsourced data in the scope section 3 -- can reuse from DWBP 10:20:06 Created ACTION-239 - Write a bit on being warying of crowdsourced data in the scope section 3 -- can reuse from dwbp [on Ed Parsons - due 2016-12-23]. 10:20:33 jtandy: I think we're moving to strike BP17, but retain things from it that we think might be useful 10:21:11 close action-238 10:21:11 Closed action-238. 10:21:58 action: jtandy to remove BP17 from the doc, retaining pertinent info about privacy crowdsourcing etc. See also action-239 10:21:59 Created ACTION-240 - Remove bp17 from the doc, retaining pertinent info about privacy crowdsourcing etc. see also action-239 [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2016-12-23]. 10:22:06 q? 10:22:34 jtandy: I propose we draw a close to the discussion on crowd sourcing. 20 mins to voting period 10:22:40 Topic: CRS 10:23:07 Byron: The issues is that there are several sections on CRS 10:23:16 ... It just needs a little work. 10:23:37 ...Not sure that the tone of them agree. It looks as if they could be consolidated. 10:23:46 ... That was more a comment than anything else. 10:24:00 jtandy: Section 7 is 1.5 A4 pages... 10:24:15 ... Our hope was to introduce the topic of CRSs and projections 10:24:26 ... SO non-geo people might see it's something to pay attention to. 10:24:40 ... One can argue that's useful info, but does it go before the BPs 10:24:51 eparsons: We clearly need to deal with the issue. Not sure that section 7 is the best wayu to do it. 10:25:07 ... Our community falls into making things complicated. 10:25:35 ... For the vast majority, it's not an issue. The default works. Publishing the location of shop,s where to meet etc. it's not important. 10:25:48 ... But it is important for some of the communities we deal with 10:25:55 q+ to talk about mapping agencies 10:26:09 jtandy: I agree - the CRS stuff isn't hitting the mark yet. 10:26:33 ... Payam and I wrote much of section 7. There is a small community where it matters. 10:26:51 ... Maybe some of that info could be in an annexe 10:26:53 q+ 10:27:02 eparsons: I thought I saw a section was much more Q&A style 10:27:17 Byron: BP3 and 18 both have that style 10:27:58 eparsons: I think if you have that sort of approach. If you're doing this sort of data, don't worry about this, but with other data, you need to worry about that. 10:28:09 Byron: The issue of CRS is more n end user than publishers 10:28:16 s/more n/more on/ 10:28:43 q? 10:28:51 Byron: Drawing a circle on a map, OK, but draw it on the ground it will be different with different projections 10:29:14 eparsons: For most people, the fact that you can't draw a circle in a Web Mercator projection - does it matter? 10:29:38 Byron: Well if you're worrying about alerting people along a coast for an oncoming Tsunami - yes. 10:30:06 ... A classic example I saw recently was the track of a cruise shop through the north west passage it looked crazy. Change the projection it made sense. 10:30:14 q+ 10:30:20 q+ 10:30:39 Byron: I don't know how far we'd go, but wee do need to give some advice to an end user. 10:30:58 ack next 10:30:59 phila, you wanted to talk about mapping agencies 10:30:59 ... The main one... if most of the data will be used in a local projection, publish in that projection. 10:31:02 ack me: 10:32:19 phila: +1 to Ed on most people not knowing about projections - and prob don't need to *unless* they're working with mapping agencies. 10:32:56 ack next 10:32:56 eparsons: We're seeing... no one os more knowledgeable about IGN's data than IGN, but they don't publish their data in Lat/Long so they're missing a market 10:32:57 ack Payam 10:33:42 ack next 10:34:01 Payam: What I hear is that it's important to keep this section. We can highlight who needs to read the section - you can add a hyperlink to skip it 10:34:17 Linda: I worry that were falling into the trap of trying to educate people more than is our remit. 10:34:26 +q 10:34:39 ... We can advise people to publish in local CRS and Lat/Long 10:34:59 +1 to linda 10:35:12 ack next 10:35:15 ...And we can say that there are other CRSs and explain why they exist and when they matter 10:35:28 ... Maybe in an annex 10:36:02 jtandy: Byron had the example of publishing a map with a circle - colleagues asking for Cubic Splines 10:36:18 ... I asked what happens if you project that onto a UK map? 10:36:39 eparsons: To Linda's point - we're not going to teach people cartography. 10:36:53 ... That's not our job. Someone does need to do it, but it's not our job. 10:37:21 jtandy: We saud that we should yell people that they should also publish in Web Mercator and we should tell people that other CRS exist. 10:37:35 ChrisLittle: OGC deprecated Web Mercator 10:37:40 q? 10:38:05 ack next 10:38:08 s/saud/said/ 10:38:11 eparsons: Web Mercator is still the most used, whether PGC deprecates it or not. 10:38:28 Payam: I disagree a little. OK, we're not educating, but we need to make people aware of the issues. 10:38:48 s/yell/tell/ 10:38:50 ... I think this doc is written for people who don't know about this stuff, which it does. 10:38:56 q+ to support Payam 10:39:16 eparsons: If we can point people to good resources that teach cartography 10:39:29 ClausStadler1: Maybe point to examples of polygons in different projections 10:39:41 ack next 10:39:42 phila, you wanted to support Payam 10:40:08 Q+ 10:41:08 q+ 10:41:12 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 10:41:35 phila: Supports inclusion of the intro material - it reads well. I'd be sad to see it lost completely, and even in an annexe almost loses it. 10:41:39 q? 10:41:48 eparsons: You talk about map projections is not about data publishing 10:41:50 +q 10:42:08 +q 10:42:15 ClemensPortele: The German native data projection is UTM 10:42:29 q? 10:42:39 eparsons: But you end up with either planar coordinates or angular measurements. It's only an issue if you want to do something different from those. 10:43:12 eparsons: You need to know that one set is projected, one isn't. It's only when you come to create graphics that it matters. 10:43:17 ack next 10:43:17 ack l 10:44:04 Linda: This discussion illustrates this point - we're trying to educate people. We should tone it down. I'd prefer an annex, but we should make clear that bit's only interesting in certain use cases. 10:44:10 Q+ 10:44:27 ... Lat/Long is often enough. We shouldn't try and convince people that there is a problem. 10:45:02 ahaller2_ has joined #sdw 10:45:21 ack next 10:45:26 Linda: Talked about a website where you can drag countries and see how their relative size changes. 10:45:57 SimonCox: Back on Phil and what Linda was saying. Most of us that have some education in the spatial sciences... know that CRSs is the biggest dragon in the room. 10:46:09 ack next 10:46:14 ... If we're writing a Spatial data on the Web BP doc, we'd be delinquent in not giving it some prominence. 10:46:19 Payam: +1 to Simon. 10:46:35 ... If I read this doc and understand it better - which I did - that's helpful 10:46:37 ack next 10:47:08 +1 ByronCinNZ 10:47:13 ByronCinNZ: Maybe it is beyond us to educate people, but we can highlight why they might care and point them to resources. 10:47:50 ... Another issue - imagery - if you have vector graphics, OK, but not so easy for raster data. 10:48:01 ack c 10:48:25 ack next 10:48:37 eparsons: We have to find the right balance of telling people about the issues without scaring them off as there aren't dragons for most. 10:48:43 q? 10:49:03 ChrisLittle: I think there's a consensus that we keep it, but we're debating whether it goes in the annex or main doc. If it goes in the annex, what goes in the intro? 10:49:03 q+ to ask if someone can take a lead on evolving the CRS content 10:49:14 ack next 10:49:15 jtandy, you wanted to ask if someone can take a lead on evolving the CRS content 10:49:40 jtandy: Can one of the WG take a lead in pulling together the discussion about CRSs 10:49:49 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 10:49:57 ... Can someone take an action to sort this out? 10:50:06 ... We'd like someone to take ownership. 10:50:27 eparsons: I'd be happy to take a run at the introduction which is the only bit I have a problem with. I think the intro is a bit scary. 10:50:36 SimonCox: Does it just need a picture? 10:50:53 eparsons: Maybe. For a lot of people, no need to worry, anda then just work through to where it does get more complicated. 10:51:20 ... It seems really complicated when all someone wants to do is publish the location of their summer fete. 10:51:32 Q+ 10:51:36 jtandy: There are still two BPs that need work. 10:51:46 Byron: I can put my hand up to merge a couple of BPs. 10:52:04 jtandy: It's not about merging, it's about making sure that they contain actionable advice. 10:52:16 Byron: we'll at least determine what the differences are. 10:52:45 action: Byron to take the lead on BP 3 and 18 around CRSs 10:52:45 Created ACTION-241 - Take the lead on bp 3 and 18 around crss [on Byron Cochrane - due 2016-12-23]. 10:52:50 ack c 10:52:51 ack next 10:53:29 ChrisLittle: I was going to suggest including a sentence that GPS isn't the only show in town. Galileo went live yesterday. 10:53:40 eparsons: Time to move on 10:53:55 Topic: Vote of BP Doc 10:54:03 PROPOSED: That the editors current draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration 10:54:08 +1 10:54:09 +1 10:54:10 +1 10:54:10 +1 10:54:11 +1 10:54:11 +1 10:54:11 +1 10:54:12 +1 10:54:12 +1 10:54:12 +1 10:54:15 +1 10:54:20 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 10:54:25 +1 10:54:31 +1 10:54:33 +1 10:54:38 RESOLUTION: That the editors current draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration 10:54:41 +1 10:55:00 Congratulations and Thanks to the Editors !!! 10:55:11 jtandy: We want to keep the tempo of publishing every 6 weeks or so. 10:55:26 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 10:55:31 [Vote of thanks to the editors] 10:55:39 RRSAgent, draft minutes 10:55:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 10:56:12 Back in 15 mins - 11:10 GMT :-) 10:57:45 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 10:58:09 jtandy has joined #sdw 10:58:56 jtandy has joined #sdw 10:59:44 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:00:33 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:01:20 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:14:02 eparsons has joined #sdw 11:14:17 B****y macs. Even boast about when they go to sleep. 11:14:48 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 11:14:51 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:17:24 ahaller2 update from yesterday; we agreed yesterday to do some changes; ahaller2 has sent an email and also made some updates 11:17:30 Topic: SSN 11:18:24 q+ I don't see a link from the document to sosa.ttl in github 11:18:49 q+ to point out that there is no link to sosa.ttl included in the document 11:19:15 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commits/gh-pages/ssn/index.html 11:19:35 ahaller2 the links refers to the changes- mainly editorial and HTML fixes 11:19:43 q+ 11:19:57 ahaller2 there are also some reappearing "999" issues; 11:20:31 ack next 11:20:32 SimonCox, you wanted to point out that there is no link to sosa.ttl included in the document 11:20:36 ahaller2 one of the pull requests has been rejected due to some html errors 11:21:14 SimonCox links on the top of the document refer to some of the resources but not all the resources; at the moment there are lots of RDF files in Github; 11:21:21 ack next 11:21:52 ack kerry 11:22:33 kerry there were 5 "999" issues; two still remaining; reformatting the code section 11:22:50 q+ 11:23:33 there seem to be some problem with the versioning and changes made to the document 11:23:48 ack next 11:23:49 ack next 11:24:18 ahaller2 : has made the changes to the document based on what was agreed yesterday 11:24:43 ahaller2 issues 110 and 111 are new issues; 11:25:14 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:25:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 11:25:19 ahaller2 issues 108 and 109 were raised yesterday by RaulGarciaCastro and DanhLePhuoc 11:25:59 changes made in the past two hours were editorial changes; typos and broken lines, etc. 11:26:36 q+ 11:26:48 ahaller2 the content of the current documents and the updates are based on what was agreed yesterday 11:26:59 q+ 11:27:07 jtandy suggests to follow the same process as BP sub-group 11:27:25 higher tempo of releases would be great! feels like less risk in accepting something we know is incomplete/imperfect 11:27:26 q+ 11:27:27 ack next 11:28:20 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 11:28:28 laurent_oz comment about splitting to 2 sections- he disagrees with this... 11:29:08 q+ 11:29:11 ack next 11:29:15 laurent_oz the difference with (old) SSN should be highlighted better 11:30:11 q? 11:30:42 there seems to be several last minuted changes to the ssn document which needed to be discussed and agreed within the group; especially please avoid accepting any pull requests and ask editors to do this 11:31:10 s/minuted/minute/ 11:32:01 kerry thinks we should accept the status of the document once all the changes are reviewed are discussed. 11:32:05 ack next 11:32:17 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commits/gh-pages/ssn/index.html 11:32:33 ahaller2 the changes are mainly editorial 11:32:53 q+ this is not true 11:33:41 +q 11:34:04 ack next 11:34:34 SimonCox requests specifics of the problems that need to be addressed 11:35:09 SimonCox SOSA has been on the table for the past 6 months 11:35:32 SimonCox there are open issues in SOSA but that was intentional 11:36:08 ack next 11:36:36 q+ 11:36:44 Payam: This is a repeat of yesterday's discussion, I scribed that too - I think the editors need to discuss this between themselves. 11:37:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:37:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 11:37:20 scribe: Payam 11:37:22 ack next 11:37:24 scribeNick: Payam 11:38:00 q+ 11:38:11 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/7a9a2c45a520fe7f2cff701561042c150008f503 11:38:18 kerry agrees that the editorial and merge/accept should be managed better- especially the comments regarding the changes to be more specific 11:39:35 +q 11:40:23 ack next 11:40:32 q? 11:40:40 ahaller2 explains the recent changes 11:40:47 q+ 11:42:47 ack next 11:43:13 ack next 11:43:21 q+ to offer http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fvocab-ssn%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fssn%2F 11:44:40 jtandy recommends against last minute changes and rush-hour behaviour ; we may need a period of no change for this 11:44:48 q+ 11:45:47 jtandy maybe for different parts of the document one of the editors will own that section and will monitor all the updates for that particular part 11:45:58 q+ 11:46:04 +1 jtandy - well modularised pull requests 11:46:29 ack next 11:46:30 phila, you wanted to offer http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fvocab-ssn%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fssn%2F 11:46:32 jtandy thinks we won't be able to support a vote today 11:47:24 * thanks Linda 11:47:26 we lost you 11:47:30 phila diffs shown by github sometimes could look enormous but they can be editorial and minor; better to check the difference between the documents 11:47:38 No sound from London 11:47:47 looking into that 11:47:51 one minute 11:48:11 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 11:49:33 q? 11:49:34 phila changes shown by github sometimes can be misleading 11:49:36 q+ 11:49:42 ack next 11:50:33 ahaller2 suggests to have a meeting next week to discuss any possible objections to the document 11:50:37 ack next 11:50:53 eparsons thinks this is too close to Christmas to have vote on this document 11:51:04 ack next 11:51:22 q+ to talk about publishing moratorium, Christmas etc. 11:51:42 kerry likes jtandy 's suggestions 11:52:40 q+ 11:52:47 q+ 11:52:53 the changes should be discussed; please avoid making last minutes changes; especially before the vote process 11:53:19 ack next 11:53:20 phila, you wanted to talk about publishing moratorium, Christmas etc. 11:53:47 q- 11:53:52 phila the documents won't be published before the first week of January 11:54:21 the practical delay in publication date won't be significant; 11:54:35 s/practical/publication 11:55:05 q+ to suggest it maybe can be faster 11:55:06 ack next 11:55:26 we probably won't be able to make the required changes in the next 2 weeks; most people will be on holiday 11:56:06 q? 11:56:07 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 11:56:08 +1 i 11:56:09 ahaller2 is asking if SSN sub-group members will be available for a meeting next week 11:56:10 q+ 11:56:12 One of my reasons for joining is that I should be able to bring in images (of points discussed) to back up the discussions (make sure everyone is on the same page). And I'm here next week. 11:56:15 I can join the call Tuesday evening UK time, Wednesday morning Aus time 11:56:15 ack next 11:56:16 kerry, you wanted to suggest it maybe can be faster 11:56:24 q+ 11:56:33 kerry is keen to get the working draft published; 11:56:39 ack p 11:57:01 phila the next publication date is the 2nd of January 11:57:04 ack j 11:57:30 q+ 11:57:35 jtandy would like to know when the document will be stable; so he can read/review the document 11:58:25 eparsons suggests the editors agree on how they are going to manage the document 11:59:02 q+ 11:59:07 ack next 11:59:42 q+ to talk about language and anchors 11:59:56 ahaller2 thinks the document as it is is stable; he has incorporated the changes were raised- he won't make any changes to make sure the document will stay stable 12:00:14 q+ 12:00:16 DanhLePhuoc can do the work; he can also review the updates 12:00:25 ack next 12:00:38 'Gatekeeper in chief' ? 12:00:41 q- 12:01:20 ack next 12:01:21 phila, you wanted to talk about language and anchors 12:01:26 kerry doesn't have any concerns who takes the role; but agrees we need one editor to be in charge of monitoring the changes 12:01:54 phila spelling should be American 12:02:03 being "editor in chief" doesn't have to be forever ... you could assign that role for a limited period 12:02:08 q+ 12:02:13 phila change log should be up-to-date; it is important 12:02:15 ack k 12:02:40 phila has found 9, 404 errors... 12:02:47 ... also optimisation, prioritisation 12:03:05 q+ 12:03:19 -> https://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fssn%2F&hide_type=all&depth=&check=Check Link Check on the Editors' Draft 12:03:27 There are also TODOs and "..." parts in there, which I suppose should be turned into proper issues(?) 12:03:52 +1 to ClausStadler1 12:03:53 q+ to suggest a "coiple of days' might be ok this time 12:03:58 ack next 12:04:03 jtandy big chunks of changes probably require around 2 weeks notice and smaller changes need a couple of days perhaps 12:04:31 ahaller2 discusses the possible meeting for next week 12:05:25 ahaller2 suggests Monday morning deadline for changes and Wednesday morning meeting 12:05:34 q+ 12:05:35 ack next 12:05:36 kerry, you wanted to suggest a "coiple of days' might be ok this time 12:05:58 kerry is happy with the proposal 12:06:22 ack next 12:06:33 kerry suggests to go through the document today 12:08:00 sounds good to me, 4th of Jan meeting to get a vote 12:08:05 +1 12:08:10 phila : next plenary will be in January; we could potentially vote on the 4th of January and publish the document on the 5th (all other documents will be also published on the 5th - two days delay for other documents) 12:08:31 q? 12:08:50 Just a small comment on the huge diffs: A vast amount in this concrete case are differences in white spaces - so on the one hand, the editors should make sure they don't use any auto-formatting, on the other hand its about disciple that ugly looking PRs are not merged. For the auto-generated code, using an auto-formatter should be considered(I think I heard such a comment when we had just re-established audio) 12:09:04 eparsons suggests to have the ssn meeting next week and see how much progress we can make 12:09:25 +1 to ClausStadler1, I tried to explain that too 12:09:25 q+ 12:09:27 DanhLePhuoc will be editor-in-chief of ssn for this release 12:09:29 ack next 12:10:11 s/disciple/discipline/ 12:10:27 eparsons : remainder of this session? 12:10:41 q+ 12:10:53 ack next 12:11:01 yep - it is 23:10 here! 12:11:14 eparsons suggest whether we should take some time offline to read the document 12:12:00 we can take sometime offline to go through the document 12:12:15 s/sometime/some time/ 12:12:34 kerry will take us through the document and will focus on the changes 12:13:07 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ 12:13:22 w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ 12:13:50 introduction section hasn't changes much 12:13:57 Topic: Section 3 12:14:20 Section 3: Figure 1 12:15:01 the core has had little change from the (old) ssn ontology 12:15:31 there is a proposal to provide a non-normative alignment to O&M (on the right) 12:15:38 jtandy has joined #sdw 12:15:58 on the left we have DOLCE Ultra Light; in the new SSN this has changed 12:16:22 SSN can stand without dolce ultra light 12:17:01 horizontal modularisation has been abandoned; 12:17:14 q+ 12:17:20 ack next 12:18:07 ahaller2 modularisation has been removed form the document; there was no horizontal module in the document 12:18:07 Horizontal modules might deal with refined models for Actuation, Sampling? 12:18:30 Section 4: 12:18:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:18:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 12:19:17 using spec gen to generate the specification in section 4 (some parts are also done manually to help the readability) 12:19:35 the main change is change to the namespace 12:20:30 there are some issues around names and relationships in the document 12:20:40 Section 6: Alignment 12:20:40 this is new 12:20:51 q+ 12:20:56 formatting will be fixed 12:21:07 alignment between new SSN and old SSN 12:22:10 the reason for this alignment is so that the implmentation of old SSN can be used with the new SSN 12:22:12 (just send a figure showing the alignment between the old and new SSN on the mailing list) - the kind of things I want to help with. 12:22:21 ack next 12:22:25 helping the transition from old ssn to the new 12:22:52 Linda asking about the chapter realted to SOSA and the order of topics in the document 12:23:24 SOSA should probably be discussed below SSN 12:23:50 q+ 12:23:54 q+ 12:23:58 q+ 12:24:07 ack p 12:24:25 [recap] I suggested SOSA should be discussed before SSN as its the core 12:24:45 q+ 12:25:29 phila process shouldn't be deriving the design decisions; 12:25:59 process should not define the desin 12:26:10 s/dedin/design 12:26:13 s/dedin/design/ 12:26:40 kerry SOSA has several new terms and do not map directly to SSN 12:26:58 phila then you need to prove these new terms are used 12:27:34 kerry there is process to achieve this but has concerns whether this will be achieved... 12:27:54 SOSA has very limited relations to SSN 12:28:01 q+ 12:28:04 +1 12:28:13 phila you may then need a document explaining SSN and a note describing SOSA 12:28:37 ack next 12:28:59 DanhLePhuoc raised the concern about SOSA and structure 12:29:19 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdw 12:29:25 q- 12:30:18 ack k 12:30:35 DanhLePhuoc refers to the experience at the early stages of ssn and we may use the lessons learned to better utilise the current efforts 12:31:09 DanhLePhuoc then the modularisation may be included in this document 12:31:27 q? 12:31:35 +q 12:32:15 kerry discusses what we should do to publish SOSA 12:32:24 ack a 12:33:10 ahaller2 there many issues in the document but in essence the core of SOSA is a lightweight representation of SSN 12:33:11 +1 ahaller2 12:33:34 ack next 12:34:00 q+ to say that right now we are trying to make SOSA a module of SSN but even if it is inspired by it its development is going in parallel; we need to start discussing SOSA+SSN and not them in parallel 12:34:22 ack next 12:34:23 RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that right now we are trying to make SOSA a module of SSN but even if it is inspired by it its development is going in parallel; we need to 12:34:23 ... start discussing SOSA+SSN and not them in parallel 12:35:03 RaulGarciaCastro discusses SOSA 12:35:17 +1 to Raul's comment 12:35:28 +1 also 12:36:08 RaulGarciaCastro we should not only discuss things differently e.g. the temporal properties in SSN or in SOSA; this way we will end up having two different implementations 12:36:40 kerry SSN importing the core; there are some issues that need to be resolved 12:36:50 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 12:36:56 For me ssn importing sosa will not work: it is too much of a jump for of user base to follow. 12:37:14 s/of user base/our user base/ 12:37:48 kerry there is only one difference between old and new SSNs (sensor class has changed + dolce has been removed) 12:37:54 /me Just lurking on IRC. 12:38:26 q+ 12:38:31 Hello AndreaPerego 12:38:34 q+ 12:38:38 ack next 12:39:55 ack next 12:40:00 laurent_oz old ssn names and new ssn names and SOSA should be shown in boxes and shown how they are related; basically highlighting that the readers need to know about 12:40:29 q+ 12:40:40 ack k 12:40:48 phila don't use rdf/xml to show old/new... 12:40:52 +1 removing RDF/XML, it's urgly 12:41:25 formal semantic statements should be written in formal semantics 12:42:27 q+ 12:42:34 I did an alignment for SOSA->om-lite here https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-oml.ttl 12:42:41 Isn't that OK? 12:42:58 q+ 12:43:00 ack r 12:43:02 q+ 12:43:21 q+ 12:43:33 RaulGarciaCastro would like to see a table that summarises the implementation and full implementation can be an annex 12:43:54 ack k 12:44:55 kerry the reason for not doing this is that this is based on old SSN- this means listing all the classes and properties and saying equivalent (all are equivalent except one) 12:45:53 alignment to DOLCE; is there and shown in trutle; maybe some explanation could be helpful (or a diagram?) 12:46:09 q+ 12:46:09 ack next 12:46:46 https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/ 12:46:56 q+ 12:46:57 DanhLePhuoc looks trivial when only equivalents are shown.... 12:46:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:46:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 12:47:42 At least something like this is always useful (even if it does not capture the whole expressiveness: https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/images/OntStructure-AlignmentDUL.jpg 12:48:09 kerry agrees to put the semantics in an appendix 12:48:40 the alignment to DOLCE (Section 7): this is different; a figure will be god 12:48:44 s/god/good 12:48:49 q+ to ask why we're defining owl:Class for DUL 12:48:50 s/god/good/ 12:48:55 ack next 12:49:28 SimonCox agreeing with kerry 12:50:15 ack next 12:50:17 there are some sub-properties and union classes involved as well 12:50:19 q- 12:50:41 q+ 12:50:45 laurent_oz also thinks a figure will be good; 12:50:52 q+ 12:51:18 ack K 12:52:08 kerry asks whether a figure will be good enough to describe the alignment (on its own) 12:52:15 ack next 12:52:53 ahaller2 pictures will be nice; because the ontologies change, we haven't generated the figures yet 12:53:45 I remembered my point now. Can't add comments to mappings without reification ... 12:53:55 q+ 12:54:15 ack next 12:54:29 q+ to ask Simon and Chris about Time before we call lunch please? 12:54:57 SimonCox adding some comments and narrative to the changes... 12:55:20 SimonCox : talking about Section 8 (which currently is a placeholder) 12:55:37 will be OGC input to this work... 12:55:54 there are some OWL implementations to be used... 12:56:22 ack next 12:56:23 phila, you wanted to ask Simon and Chris about Time before we call lunch please? 12:56:36 Topic: Time Ontology 12:56:43 phila asks for an update 12:57:05 ChrisLittle has sent emails and has proposed doing the note and has also looked into the issues 12:57:24 ChrisLittle and the team are working on it 12:57:53 ChrisLittle will try to annotate some video feeds (in near future) 12:58:15 phila we need implementation of the new stuff 12:58:48 SimonCox explains an implementation which is done at CSIRO 12:59:05 phila this is good; we need another one 12:59:36 ChrisLittle will annotate the vides and climate... 12:59:46 s/vides/videos/ 13:00:40 q+ 13:00:40 phila you need those independent implementations by March 13:01:06 phila a CSIRO service using the ontology will be acceptable as an implementation 13:01:50 ack d 13:02:12 phila or gathering old implementation and providing a non-normative descriptions... (this doesn't seem to be required) 13:02:32 DanhLePhuoc explains the RDF Stream Processing work... 13:02:56 Intention is to redo this: http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/ics/ischart/ to use OWL-Time 13:03:19 close the queue 13:03:22 DanhLePhuoc the question is that if the engine that they have implemented can be also considered here... 13:03:30 (crappy UI, but the content is good) 13:03:41 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html DWBP Implementation report 13:03:48 phila gives an example of a good implementation 13:03:52 link above 13:04:03 q? 13:04:28 Can I go to bed now? 13:04:37 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:04:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:04:44 Thank you all... 13:04:54 [Lunch] 13:05:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:05:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:05:11 I won't be back after lunch, thanks all! 13:05:20 bye 13:05:29 Bye 13:05:31 we will be back at 14:00 GMT 13:05:46 +1 me 13:05:51 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:05:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:06:06 Lunchtime !! 13:41:28 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 14:00:37 phila has joined #sdw 14:03:49 jtandy has joined #sdw 14:04:07 Linda has joined #sdw 14:04:34 scribe: Clemens 14:04:35 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 14:04:42 scribeNick: ClemensPortele 14:04:47 present+ ClemensPortele 14:06:00 jtandy: This afternoon we want to spend time about the choices to make (vocabularies, formats, etc) 14:06:59 jtandy: ClemensPortele, you wanted to talk about how to express rich data from ISO/GML application schemas in JSON, RDF 14:07:27 Topic: Document Structure 14:07:38 jtandy: plus document structure and other items from Payam 14:07:55 jtandy: Move the document summary right after the introduction 14:08:14 jtandy: kind of a quick start guide 14:08:50 eparsons: in terms of the current structure, chapter 11 would move close to the top? 14:08:53 jtandy: yes 14:09:22 jtandy: There BP template does not seem to add much value, it is self-explanatory 14:09:40 phila: agrees 14:09:51 jtandy: we could reference the DWBP template 14:10:03 eparsons: not even necessary 14:10:59 Action on Linda to restructure the document to move the summary to the top and remove the template 14:10:59 Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at . 14:11:07 topic: Sprint Planning 14:11:10 Action oLinda to restructure the document to move the summary to the top and remove the template 14:11:11 Error finding 'oLinda'. You can review and register nicknames at . 14:11:14 Action Linda to restructure the document to move the summary to the top and remove the template 14:11:15 Created ACTION-242 - Restructure the document to move the summary to the top and remove the template [on Linda van den Brink - due 2016-12-23]. 14:12:01 jtandy: do not want to be too ambitious, but want to keep up the pace 14:14:44 ... so far we have: BP4 (Clemens), Chapter 7 CRS (Ed) plus BPs 3 and 18 (Byron), BPs 7 and 14 (Jeremy), Document structure (Linda) 14:15:00 I can take care of BP8. 14:15:30 ... BP8 (Andrea) 14:15:57 Payam has joined #sdw 14:16:21 Nick ChrisLittle Ayatollah 14:17:10 ... more may be a result of the afternoon discussion, if we can fit it into the next release 14:17:27 q+ to ask about implementations 14:17:28 eparsons: How many sprints do we need to complete the work? 14:17:39 ack p 14:17:39 PhilA, you wanted to ask about implementations 14:17:44 jtandy: Let's work this out as part of the next sprint 14:18:09 PhilA: a note, not a rec, but we want to have implementation evidence 14:18:12 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html Implementation report for DWBP 14:18:55 ... they started with an overly long form, but in the end a Google spreadsheet was just fine 14:19:45 ... the group is not required to do this, but may want to provide it to back the content 14:19:49 q? 14:19:54 ... it took them 3 months 14:20:12 Just to note that DWBP implementation report does not report about GeoNetwork, which is a widely used geospatial catalogue platform (at least in Europe). 14:20:29 +1 examples in used doc is good enough 14:20:37 jtandy: we should only reference live examples 14:20:40 q+ to ask about the most efficient way of collecting implementation evidence 14:20:44 ... batch collecting not required 14:20:56 s/batch/badge/ 14:21:05 eparsons: Don't think we need a separate document 14:21:21 q+ 14:21:24 ack nexxt 14:21:28 ack a 14:21:28 AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask about the most efficient way of collecting implementation evidence 14:22:11 AndreaPerego: in DWBP separate by BP that later needed to be merged 14:23:04 jtandy: Link to the examples where we can, otherwise it is enough if we are convinced there is evidence 14:23:17 ack next 14:23:39 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Examples_in_the_Wild 14:24:06 Linda: Recently became aware of some examples, now on a wiki page - that is a resource that we can build on 14:25:40 jtandy: so could work until the end of June, but want to finish by the end of May 14:26:07 PhilA: The recs need to finish end of March and the BP document is not done in isolation 14:26:18 ... regular calls should end in March 14:27:26 eparsons: How about end of April? 14:27:37 q? 14:28:25 jtandy: this sprint - end of January; next sprint - mid March; final sprint - end of April 14:28:38 ... kind of worried that this is not sufficient 14:29:39 jtandy: We will try end of April, but if we need another sprint we could do it after April 14:29:49 +q 14:29:57 ... and continue the calls with those interested 14:30:13 eparsons: reordering of the BPs should be done with as many as possible 14:30:25 Linda: Maybe during the f2f in Delft? 14:30:49 PhilA: yes, forgot about this, this is where the recs should be close to final 14:31:51 eparsons: f2f in Delft will be Monday 20 March 14:33:18 q? 14:33:27 ack p 14:33:28 eparsons: this is just for BP, we need a separate meeting for the rec votes, so Tuesday for that 14:33:40 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 14:34:09 Payam: We should a cut-off date for new comments, e.g. 20 March 14:34:44 jtandy: Fiar comment, no new concepts to be added after mid March sprint 14:34:51 s/Fiar/fair/ 14:35:25 Payam: Also not removing elements that others may think are important 14:37:24 joshlieberman: Plans for Geosemantics session in Delft - what can the DWG from the W3C/OGC work? 14:37:34 ... so the other direction 14:37:58 jtandy: So, the more stable it is the better for the Geosemantics discussion 14:40:38 eparsons: Will work on the outreach task; based on when we have a stable enough document for this 14:40:52 jtandy: Probably after the next spring 14:41:07 PhilA: do not forget the horizontal review 14:41:30 ... should be the January version to leave enough time 14:42:24 q? 14:42:36 Linda: We should publish the sprint plan 14:42:50 Action Linda to publish the sprint plan on the wiki 14:42:50 Created ACTION-243 - Publish the sprint plan on the wiki [on Linda van den Brink - due 2016-12-23]. 14:43:08 RaulGarciaCastro_ has joined #sdw 14:46:20 Topic: Spatial Vocabularies 14:46:27 Topic: Vocabularies (and some other stuff) 14:46:50 s/Topic: Spatial Vocabularies// 14:49:12 if you are starting from scratch , are there any building blocks that you can use; and if yes, how do you use them? 14:49:43 if I have something in one format and one to publish it in a different format how to do this. 14:50:08 how do we publish a data that we have in RDf or in geo-json 14:50:24 do we have a mechanisms to express different views at the same time 14:50:49 1) Reuse 2) reinvent 3) follow a modeling process 14:50:59 jtandy best practices should be able to express how different approaches can converge 14:51:33 q? 14:51:38 q+ 14:52:03 eparsons different communities will take different approaches; there won't be one solution.... we have to recognise the fact that there will differences in approaches... some of these can be captured in use-cases 14:53:06 eparsons if you were a coffeeshop chain your approach will be different and probably your requirements will be simpler compared to some others that may have more complex requirements.... 14:53:18 jtandy think of your user first 14:53:24 ack next 14:54:28 joshlieberman there are two ends of the spectrum; easy one: take something and publish it (shares/re-use); the other: using more complex models and schemas 14:54:36 depends on the resources that you have 14:55:28 One suggestion is that this is what modular vocabularies help with. 14:55:29 we want people to escalate but not reinvent if there are already a best practices to do something in a certain way 14:55:55 s/a best practices/best practices/ 14:57:18 ClemensPortele we need provide more conceptual level advice to publishers 14:57:25 q? 14:57:34 s/we need provide/we need to provide/ 14:58:24 ClemensPortele we need to look at what is already there and make recommendations 14:58:39 q? 14:59:17 ClemensPortele you can look at the existing solutions/practices and see if they satisfy your needs 14:59:23 Again -- modularization and pointing at the simplest approach for adding a capability, e.g. starting with PROV-O for lineage, starting with DCAT for search metadata. 15:00:08 ClemensPortele if somewhere there is no solutions, we can say there is no (common) solution there; and that still will be helpful 15:01:07 Working right now to modularize GeoSPARQL, for example. Core looks like GeoRSS, then adds relations, simple features, topology, etc. 15:02:17 ClemensPortele would like to focus on UML models (in contrast to GML) here; conceptual level... 15:02:42 making it easier to publisher to what they should look at.... 15:02:53 s/publisher/publishers 15:03:08 ClemensPortele UML, GML, RDF JSON 15:03:39 UML provides the conceptual glue, but mechanical relations seem to get us in trouble (e.g. GOM). 15:03:51 q? 15:04:13 it will be good if we have a document somewhere that we can update it beyond the editorial lifetime of the current document 15:05:30 ClemensPortele it shouldn't only be about purely mechanical solutions; it should also consider the needs... 15:06:43 not the domain modelling but the building blocks 15:07:58 joshlieberman we want to support different tools; what is the best mechanism to establish the link to UML(---scribe: missed this part ---?) 15:08:34 ClemensPortele wants to make it clear for human readers - do we have a formal way to represent that 15:09:10 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:09:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html PhilA 15:09:46 jtandy discussing a road traffic incident reporting example; if you want to apply what we are discussing here; where do you start? 15:09:47 q? 15:09:55 scribeNick: Payam 15:09:59 scribe: Payam 15:10:18 eparsons let's say: if I have my portal now; what do I need to do differently? 15:11:29 ClemensPortele we have discussed how to create the indexable html pages for the datasets but we haven't discussed other forms of publishing the data... 15:11:47 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 15:12:00 q? 15:12:09 if you want to publish your dataset in both DCAT and RDF; how do you that? do we provide enough help to make sure people don't go in different directions.... 15:12:32 ClemensPortele we may use some tables to summarise and describe these...\ 15:13:00 eparsons do the current best practices cover these? 15:13:06 Usual escalation: 1) Copy existing road feature schema; 2) Add geometry to existing road schema; 3) Use / extend modeling vocabulary (gml, ogeo) to create new road schema 15:13:13 ClemensPortele we have the best practices but they are not clear enough 15:14:17 ClemensPortele we use existing common vocabularies... we should provide more information about these... 15:14:24 +q 15:15:40 q+ to talk about http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp 15:15:59 ClausStadler1 discusses using different formats 15:15:59 ack p 15:15:59 PhilA, you wanted to talk about http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp 15:17:08 ack next 15:18:50 jtandy first focusing on user needs 15:19:46 for simple data, geo-json can be sufficient 15:19:59 for more complex datasets, GML or other formats; 15:20:20 other applications/use-cases, may need rdf ro json-ld 15:20:27 s/ro/or 15:20:53 q+ 15:21:28 acl l 15:21:31 ack l 15:21:31 joshlieberman we should discuss pros/cons 15:23:53 q? 15:24:30 jtandy discusses how we should capture this in the report 15:24:44 jtandy are we going to discuss KML? 15:24:50 probably not 15:24:59 use GEO-JSON 15:25:38 q+ 15:25:53 this is type of advice that we can give to people 15:26:11 e.g. if you want to do map rendering, publish it in shape file and/or geo-json 15:26:14 ack kerry 15:26:15 ack next 15:27:06 kerry what do you propose instead geo-tif? 15:27:32 jtandy you can't work with geo-tif using web browsers 15:28:07 action kerry to check reference to geotiff in eo doc 15:28:07 Created ACTION-244 - Check reference to geotiff in eo doc [on Kerry Taylor - due 2016-12-23]. 15:28:23 s/geo-tif/geo-tiff 15:28:58 eparsons we should say what people should use (in contrast to focusing on telling people what they shouldn't use) 15:29:36 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 15:29:44 shape files are proprietary - not open 15:30:05 Assumption is that recommendations are for "use on the Web" and likely "use in a browser application" 15:30:45 jtandy SesnorThings is an OGC specification and uses some building blocks from GEO-JSON 15:31:30 what are the other options in SensorThings 15:31:45 joshlieberman you can use GML, Geo-JSON... 15:32:26 the current expressions are in Geo-JSON 15:33:10 jtandy if we consider SensorThings as a practice: it considers using building blocks (geo-json...) 15:34:03 joshlieberman SensorThing standard describes its own encoding 15:34:45 jtandy has joined #sdw 15:34:49 eparsons there are lots of practices that use GEO-JSON; because it is a format that is favoured by developers 15:36:02 There is work (e.g. Testbed 12) on an OGC-JSON in JSON-LD, but doesn't have a succinct set of requirements yet, I would say 15:36:34 ClemensPortele the next step is if you have your feature; and you pass time; time ontology can express it in RDF but it is not clear how to express that in GEO-JSON... 15:36:59 GEo-JSON doesn't express the complexity of the properties... 15:37:16 q? 15:38:03 joshlieberman this is an escalation problem; there is no formalism to describe the (complex) properties of the features... 15:38:14 q? 15:38:22 Problem: GeoJSON can be extended with additional terms, but GeoJSON interpreters that read those terms are "non-conformant" 15:38:42 +q 15:39:14 q+ 15:39:46 GEO-JSON doesn't do: has one CRS, no time, 2 D geometry, simple geometry object 15:39:51 there is no ID concept 15:40:57 ack p 15:41:32 you can use concepts and common vocabularies and inject them into your JSON and/or Geo-JSON documents 15:41:43 ack nect 15:41:48 ack next 15:41:50 eparsons GEo-JSON is used to express the geometry 15:42:17 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:42:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html PhilA 15:42:26 joshlieberman what is the way to extend geo-json... 15:42:53 joshlieberman considers an OGC JSON to extend the capabilities 15:44:15 q? 15:44:22 ClemensPortele geo-json does a bit more than geometry.... there is a feature concept... 15:45:10 jtandy we can use json-ld... 15:45:26 ClemensPortele nested arrays don't work in json-ld 15:45:43 joshlieberman_ has joined #sdw 15:46:17 q+ 15:46:25 One version of OGC-JSON actually includes both GeoJSON geometry "and" WKT 15:46:54 ack next 15:46:56 ack Payam 15:47:26 Payam: What would change the world? If we encourage people to do X, what is that? 15:47:46 eparsons: All the other BPs are probably more important than this one for us. 15:48:19 ... Giving things IDs, making data crawlable that's the important thing. 15:48:39 Payam: Do people need geometries for putting stuff on a Google map? 15:48:57 eparsons: If you want to put extra layer on top, we recommend you use GeoJSON - which works for most things. 15:49:15 Payam: City planners etc. want to lay things out, The scale isn't that important? 15:49:39 eparsons: From a Web POV, there are very few things where GeoJSON isn't enough 15:50:22 jtandy: Looks at schema.org which doesn't use GeoJSON because they want to use JSON-LD and RDFa 15:50:36 eparsons: The benefit is that its even easier than GeoJSON 15:50:51 eparsons: Web developers love GeoJSON becauase it just does what it has to do 15:51:03 jtandy: If you're trying to do the data integration piece 15:51:07 eparsons: Then you're not a Web developer 15:51:18 Payam: Geometric stuff is probably not on the Web. 15:51:44 eparsons: People aren't building SDIs in the browser. 15:51:58 ... The simplest thing always wins 15:52:07 s/SDIs/GISs/ 15:52:12 jtandy: The protocol buffer used by MapBox is useful 15:52:45 jtandy: What I'm hearing - we have 3 types of usage 15:52:50 +q 15:52:51 ... Web dev - keep it simple. 15:52:55 q+ 15:53:03 jtandy: SDIs at the other end 15:53:11 ack next 15:53:15 jtandy: And we have data integration in the middle 15:53:30 Payam: I see lost of things using GeoHashing, like Mongo DB, is that relevant? 15:53:36 Q+ 15:53:41 ... MSFT has a solution around GeoHash 15:53:53 jtandy: That's just a way to express a coordinate position 15:54:02 eparsons: It's a way of tesselating 15:54:11 eparsons: It's a back office decision. 15:54:24 ack next 15:54:58 joshlieberman_ agrees that the web usage of the data is overlaying the data... 15:55:40 q+ to say the browser isn't the Web 15:55:42 joshlieberman_ data integration won't be possible with geo-json 15:56:19 q+ 15:56:24 joshlieberman_ we need to specify best practices to describe how integration can be handled - not only the simple data publication 15:57:17 jtandy you can use geo-json with IDs that in practice we can refer to objects and then use more expressive descriptions 15:57:20 ack next 15:58:16 ChrisLittle discusses web development and SDI communities; we need to recommend best practices to encourage taking the data out silos 15:59:01 q+ 15:59:01 ack next 15:59:02 PhilA, you wanted to say the browser isn't the Web 15:59:23 q? 15:59:36 ack next 15:59:49 PhilA developers building solutions for the browser is not the entire web applications/requirement 16:00:05 bye all have to catch my flight 16:00:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:00:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html PhilA 16:00:45 ack next 16:00:51 q? 16:02:02 ClemensPortele this working group should go beyond saying how to sue geo-json 16:03:07 s/sue/use/ 16:03:35 We have a path to support for mediation and integration that vocabularies in RDF/OWL refer to common concepts in UML, then have encodings, e.g. in JSON-LD that refer to the expressiveness of the RDF/OWL. 16:04:13 +1 joshlieberman_ 16:04:42 +q 16:04:47 So the advice would be use GeoJSON, and escalate using JSON-LD encodings and the higher level references to solve integration or complexity problems 16:05:17 ClemensPortele suggests the businesses should be also done on the web 16:05:29 ack next 16:05:50 q+ 16:05:53 Payam: Can we capture what OGC has in this space 16:05:55 ack j 16:05:57 ack next 16:07:12 joshlieberman_ explains combining and integration of data 16:08:02 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0 Industry 4.0 16:08:53 +q 16:09:23 E.g. we are trying to "ground" RDBMS hydro data in a hydro ontology that in term is grounded in the HY_Features UML model. 16:10:34 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 16:11:27 jtandy given there are lots of vocabularies to describe spatial data if we recommend one model.... would that be good guidance 16:11:32 q+ 16:11:53 joshlieberman_ we don't way use one solution all the time... we provide a pathway should you need 16:11:58 it 16:12:52 ack next 16:13:06 ack philA 16:13:29 q+ 16:13:33 PhilA discusses the list of vocabularies that exist... and says how many of them we can actually referecne 16:13:35 Practice is not to insist on RDF, but use something that is grounded in an RDF/OWL vocabulary to add integration potential 16:14:04 q? 16:15:01 Payam: We have to think about data that people that actually use. There's lots of RDF that's published but not used. 16:15:01 ack next 16:15:40 ClausStadler1 people publishing data talking about the same thing, this should be interoperable; interoperability: is it in the scope? 16:16:50 jtandy asks if we can provide some statistics about the vocabularies' use 16:16:53 t 16:17:46 s/t// 16:18:13 q+ 16:18:19 ack next 16:18:20 jtandy if you want to use a scheme does geosparql have the right building blocks to do that? 16:18:35 ClemensPortele: I don't see GeoSPARL as the middle ground 16:18:45 ... We should be trying to make things more comparable 16:19:08 ... If I want to integrate stuff from an SDI and from an RDF store, it helps if I understand the concepts 16:19:31 ... If I have to publish the integrated data in both formats, then I can see how to do it. 16:19:37 eparsons: I think that's right 16:19:41 So - that would benefit from the UML grounding, but RDF/OWL is more machine processable as a grounding. 16:19:43 ClemensPortele: It's about consistency 16:20:18 eparsons: If we just pick one, we can't say it's best practice... it would be bizarre if the SDW WG didn't come up with a solution for publishing RDF data. 16:20:25 q+ 16:20:29 ClemensPortele: We should be honest if theere is no definite answer. 16:20:49 jtandy: You said that maybe using vocab X partially solves the problem 16:21:08 ... Is GeoSPARQL enough to describe geometries 16:21:11 ack next 16:21:16 ClemensPortele: Not for 3D 16:21:40 joshlieberman: GeoSPARQL needs to be updated, Version 1 was about querying a SPARQL endpoint. Not intended to be about integration. 16:21:52 ... No place to add on the 3D, that's an important part of the update. 16:22:01 ... The idea that there are 2 levels of grounding is important 16:22:15 ... The grounding in UML is a common ground but iut;s hard to process as an integration tool 16:22:40 ... It may become a BP but it's our best hope for facilitating some integration on the Web. 16:23:02 jtandy there are two levels of grounding... 16:23:13 joshlieberman 1st: we have an owl/rdf vocab 16:23:31 .... GeoSPARQL core vocab 16:23:51 2nd level: reference to ISO/... model 16:24:26 jtandy both types of grounding should be using in an application? or these are two different choices? 16:24:56 joshlieberman: the latter case; different ways of finding common ground.... 16:25:56 jtandy summarises: you can start with json (which doesn't say much); one can use JSON-LD which allows to find common ground; further to this up to UML but this will be too abstract 16:26:21 ClemensPortele if you are using the same RDF grounding, then you can do the integration at that level 16:26:51 ClemensPortele or if you use conceptual level, that's where/the level you should do your intrgration 16:27:17 +q 16:27:22 ack next 16:29:18 ack p 16:30:21 Linda has joined #Sdw 16:31:05 For example, GeoSPARQL and IGN ground in 19107. NeoGeo did not and so is less useful for integration. 16:31:51 Congrats Linda safe travels 16:33:12 ClemensPortele has left #sdw 16:33:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:33:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 16:33:54 jtandy will summarise this discussion to describe the decision flow for best practices 16:34:50 q? 16:37:15 joshlieberman would like to get feedback related to their spatial ontology 16:38:26 Topic: BP9 16:38:42 Payam: This is very sketchy at the moment. It needs more content 16:38:56 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/121 asks if we need this as a BP at all? 16:39:07 jtandy: I think we said that it's just a special case of a CRS 16:39:26 Linda_ has joined #Sdw 16:39:28 Payam: If Josh has an ontology to describe next to, near etc. 16:39:35 eparsons: If the ontology manages those relationships, then it's solved. 16:39:53 joI did update the action about relative positioning. I have some material from Christine Perey 16:40:05 ... In theory they are different CRS, but in practice the formalism doesn't work 16:40:20 s/joI/Josh: I/ 16:40:36 +q 16:40:47 Josh: There is a concept of ego-centric, what you can see, and OWL centric, which is relative to an object. 16:41:16 josh: We can state that those are important perspectives but there is not currently a formalism for describing those. 16:41:28 jtandy: We have struggled to find vocabs for in front of/behind etc. 16:41:34 eparsons: It's a real problem 16:41:49 jtandy: We're saying 'make something up' 16:42:17 PhilA: IS this what Josh is doing or does it need to be done by someone sometime. 16:42:47 josh: We can say that this is needed. 16:43:03 AQ+ 16:43:06 action: PhilA to add vocab for relative positioning to wish list 16:43:06 Created ACTION-245 - Add vocab for relative positioning to wish list [on Phil Archer - due 2016-12-23]. 16:43:10 Q+ 16:43:58 ack next 16:44:19 PhilA: Talks about possible future joint IG 16:44:39 Payam: Some of the things at the geometry level might be too complicated 16:44:48 ... Can Josh send us that para and we'll add it to the BP doc 16:44:59 jtandy: I think we said there isn't a BP. 16:45:20 jtandy: It might go in a Note block saying 'make it up' as there isn't a Bo for this 16:45:34 ... So BP 9 will be converted to a gap in practice. 16:45:45 Topic: BP 10 16:46:27 jtandy: I think this is wrapped up in the discussion we just had about choices of vovcab 16:46:58 -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/39 Issue 39 16:47:26 Payam: Issue 38 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38 shoudl we publish a complementary Note with some mappings 16:47:31 ... I guess we won't 16:47:38 jtandy: I think that's what Clemens was suggesting 16:47:44 ... That's what those mappings are. 16:47:49 s/vovcab/vocab/ 16:48:02 s/shoudl/should/ 16:48:02 eparsons: Where there are vocabs, let's talk about correspondence between them. And then given that, how do you choose one. 16:48:13 Payam: I don't think it will be a Note, it will be table in the document. 16:48:24 jtandy: So issue 38 will prob be dealt with in the next iteration. 16:48:28 Topic: BP 11 16:48:42 Payam: Exposing data through convenience APIs 16:48:50 Payam: It's done, forget it 16:49:01 jtandy: There's a lot of wor to do about the convenience API piece. 16:49:11 ... I'd also like to tie that back to DWBP more tightly 16:49:21 s/wor /work / 16:49:27 PhilA: They sweated over that 16:49:35 jtandy: And it's much much better for it. 16:50:00 jtandy: One of the things that helps is a search function in your API because that helps find stuff. 16:50:13 ... You want to be able to search on a specific hospital. It's not a spatial issue 16:50:44 Payam: Are you saying that the API is discoverable? 16:50:56 ... Say I have an API about floods... 16:51:06 jtandy: I think finding the API is dealt with in DWBP 16:51:39 ... You might have a web service endpoint for finding info about a place but that applies to all data. 16:52:14 ClausStadler1: There might a function that returns stuff based on a geometry 16:52:31 jtandy: I think it can be integrated nto another BP 16:52:38 eparsons: I think we may need to save this issue for another time. 16:52:42 q? 16:53:06 So if hydra was mentioned in order to describe APIs themselves, then SPARQL service description should be mentioned as well 16:53:10 Q- 16:53:11 josh: I would argue that there is some place for setting out what functionality to include in an API 16:53:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:53:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 16:53:39 eparsons: Draws a line 16:53:52 [Meeting Adjourned] 16:53:55 kerry claps too 16:54:04 Thanks to everyone for a marathon session 16:54:08 Sleep well Kerry 16:54:10 sort-of 16:54:28 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:54:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html PhilA 16:54:31 Thanks, and bye! 16:54:41 Thank you all 16:54:44 Thanks to everyone on the call. 16:54:49 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:54:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-sdw-minutes.html PhilA 16:55:12 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 16:55:34 Bye and thank you 16:55:45 ClausStadler1 has left #sdw 16:55:47 Bye! 16:55:55 kerry has left #sdw 18:36:09 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 18:36:16 ClausStadler has left #sdw 18:43:05 ClausStadler1 has joined #sdw 18:43:38 ClausStadler1 has left #sdw 19:04:05 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 19:08:24 eparsons has joined #sdw 19:08:49 Zakim has left #sdw