15:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwbp
15:59:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-sdwbp-irc
15:59:16 <ScottSimmons> ScottSimmons has joined #sdwbp
15:59:19 <tidoust> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:39 <tidoust> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices Sub Group Teleconference
15:59:46 <tidoust> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170301
15:59:51 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdwbp
15:59:54 <tidoust> Chair: Jeremy
15:59:59 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdwbp
16:00:35 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdwbp
16:00:44 <tidoust> Regrets: Phil, Lars
16:01:50 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
16:01:59 <jtandy> regrets+ BillRoberts
16:02:31 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdwbp
16:02:46 <ScottSimmons> present+ ScottSimmons
16:03:05 <tidoust> Present+ Francois
16:03:12 <ByronCinNZ> ByronCinNZ has joined #sdwbp
16:03:58 <ByronCinNZ> present+ ByronCinNZ
16:04:07 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdwbp
16:04:16 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
16:04:44 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
16:05:13 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
16:05:13 <Linda> present+ Linda
16:05:17 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele has joined #sdwbp
16:05:24 <ClemensPortele> present+ ClemensPortele
16:05:44 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdwbp
16:05:47 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdwbp
16:05:51 <Linda> scribe: Linda
16:05:54 <joshlieberman> present+ joshlieberman
16:05:58 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
16:06:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwbp
16:06:16 <Linda> topic: approving the minutes
16:06:22 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-sdwbp-minutes
16:06:40 <jtandy> +1
16:06:41 <ClemensPortele> +1
16:06:41 <Linda> +1
16:06:42 <AndreaPerego> +1
16:06:47 <joshlieberman> +1
16:06:48 <eparsons> +1
16:06:48 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
16:06:53 <ByronCinNZ> +1
16:07:07 <Linda> Topic: patent call
16:07:23 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
16:07:24 <Linda> eparsons: reads out patent call
16:07:37 <Linda> [silence]
16:07:48 <Linda> topic: sprint plan
16:07:51 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#February_-_mid_March_2017:
16:08:09 <Linda> jtandy: sprint plan is on the wiki.
16:08:21 <Linda> ... josh, you're on BP1, do you recognize that?
16:08:26 <Linda> joshlieberman: yes, with Andrea
16:08:32 <Linda> jtandy: Andrea: you're on 8
16:08:46 <Linda> ... 9 is addressed to joshlieberman
16:08:53 <Linda> joshlieberman: working on that with Christine Perey
16:09:04 <Linda> jtandy: content of that may be merged with bp10 or 14
16:09:23 <Linda> ... I spoke with Bill, he knows he's on BP10
16:09:36 <Linda> .. I'm on 14, 16 will be merged
16:09:53 <Linda> ... section 11 will be based on work we're doing now
16:10:06 <Linda> ... bp11 is Clemens with support from Bart
16:10:09 <Linda> ClemensPortele: yes
16:10:17 <Linda> BartvanLeeuwen: aware
16:10:55 <Linda> jtandy: continues going through sprint plan
16:11:12 <joshlieberman> BP12 ?
16:11:15 <Linda> ...payam is creating a list of comments we need to go through
16:11:20 <jtandy> q?
16:11:37 <Linda> ... a lot of work but nothing stopping us from meeting the Delft target
16:12:03 <Linda> ... Clemens will address BP12 later in this call
16:12:27 <jtandy> topic: Decision: are non-geographic CRS out of scope
16:13:56 <eparsons> Agreed afraid so... lack expertise
16:13:59 <jtandy> q?
16:14:03 <joshlieberman> q+
16:14:21 <ByronCinNZ> q+
16:14:22 <Linda> RESOLUTION: meeting minutes approved
16:14:35 <joshlieberman> A little too much keyboard noise.
16:14:55 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:14:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-sdwbp-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:14:55 <Linda> jtandy: there is no expertise in the WG on non-geographic CRS, therefore add to our scope section that this is out
16:14:56 <jtandy> q?
16:15:00 <jtandy> ack joshlieberman
16:15:04 <Linda> eparsons: agrees, unfortunately
16:15:45 <Linda> joshlieberman: engineering coordinate systems can be tied into geographic CRS but often just relative to some structure.
16:16:07 <Linda> ... also note the egocentric perspective which comes from AR
16:16:38 <Linda> ... it's worth mentioning that this is a perspective, without offering a BP
16:16:40 <jtandy> q?
16:16:48 <jtandy> ack ByronCinNZ
16:17:07 <Linda> ByronCinNZ: leans towards exclusion of non-geo
16:17:37 <Linda> ... the doc is primarily geospatial so people from other domains will not look for info here
16:18:00 <Linda> ... both for cellular positioning and engineering
16:18:03 <jtandy> q?
16:18:20 <Linda> jtandy: coming back to joshlieberman's comment;
16:18:35 <Linda> ... agrees we ought to mention them
16:18:59 <eparsons> q+
16:18:59 <Linda> joshlieberman: there would be material for an engineering CRS BP
16:19:50 <Linda> ... making engineering data sharable by tying points to geographic CRS
16:20:11 <Linda> jtandy: this would be the place for AR info as well?
16:20:13 <Linda> joshlieberman: yes
16:20:33 <Linda> jtandy: proposes to ignore the cellular level in terms of spatial
16:21:01 <Linda> ... and include in the next sprint a BP about engineering CRSs and tying them back to geographic CRS
16:21:14 <Linda> joshlieberman: it could be an addition to BP9, if we make that relative and local positioning
16:21:30 <Linda> eparsons: and I could add a sentence or two to the intro
16:21:52 <Linda> ... something about global vs local CRS and engineering drawings being a subset of that
16:21:54 <ClausStadler_> ClausStadler_ has joined #sdwbp
16:22:20 <Linda> jtandy: please do
16:22:39 <Linda> ... joshlieberman, I encourage you to develop BP9 along the lines you've just outlined.
16:22:42 <jtandy> q?
16:22:54 <Linda> ... do you think that's possible within this sprint?
16:22:56 <eparsons> action eparsons to expand intro to include CAD drawings as another type of CRS
16:22:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Expand intro to include cad drawings as another type of crs [on Ed Parsons - due 2017-03-08].
16:23:20 <Linda> joshlieberman: yes
16:23:36 <jtandy> topic: Review progress on BP8
16:23:36 <Linda> topic: review progress for BP8
16:23:58 <AndreaPerego> Current status: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0008.html
16:24:21 <Linda> AndreaPerego: I've completed the revision based on the discussion so far.
16:24:28 <AndreaPerego> Preview: https://andrea-perego.github.io/sdw/bp/index.html#describe-geometry
16:24:30 <Linda> ... I made a fork on my github
16:24:45 <Linda> ... new parts in yellow, I kept also the original text
16:25:19 <Linda> ... revised the why and intended outcome sections, mostly the wording
16:25:37 <Linda> ... the rest is revised more thoroughly with more structure and more actionable guidelines
16:26:20 <Linda> ...there are several notes
16:26:25 <jtandy> q?
16:26:39 <eparsons> q-
16:26:48 <Linda> ... trying to describe the approaches in web, LD and geospatial communities
16:27:12 <Linda> ... and added three examples
16:29:06 <jtandy> q?
16:29:08 <Linda> (describes the examples in more detail)
16:29:19 <Linda> AndreaPerego: asks for feedback
16:29:29 <jtandy> q?
16:29:32 <Linda> jtandy: thanks AndreaPerego for the work he put in
16:29:43 <jtandy> q?
16:29:51 <AndreaPerego> :)
16:29:55 <mib_wh46xb> mib_wh46xb has joined #sdwbp
16:30:19 <mib_wh46xb> mib_wh46xb has left #sdwbp
16:31:30 <Linda> jtandy: did you find gaps in practice about how you ask for particular geometry representation?
16:32:01 <Linda> AndreaPerego: this is the part causing more trouble
16:32:16 <Linda> ... first you identify the users and applications
16:32:28 <Linda> ... then you provide in differnet ways accordingly
16:33:12 <Linda> ... I referred to what was already discussed in other parts of the BP eg about dimensions, crs, formats (the table in the appendix)
16:33:22 <Linda> ... these tables are quite useful
16:33:50 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdwbp
16:33:54 <joshlieberman> q+
16:34:12 <Linda> ... referencing DWBP on conneg
16:34:37 <Linda> ... of course there is not much detail but we could provide more detail in the examples
16:34:54 <Linda> ... please let me know if more is needed
16:35:03 <ClemensPortele> q+
16:35:36 <Linda> ... in my examples multiple representations of a spatial thing are all embedded in the thing
16:36:17 <Linda> jtandy: joshlieberman, you mentioned the next version of geosparql might make it easy to identify things like bbox, center point.
16:36:25 <Linda> ... is that worth referring to?
16:37:00 <Linda> joshlieberman: coming slow. But will be something simple like georss as a core and adding more complexity from geosparql.
16:37:03 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:37:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-sdwbp-minutes.html AndreaPerego
16:37:21 <Linda> ... but in the core there are currently no geometry role properties.
16:37:45 <AndreaPerego> s/differnet/different/
16:38:08 <Linda> ... there ARE geometry role properties in the core
16:38:27 <Linda> ... The other issue is the distinction between positions and geometry.
16:38:54 <Linda> ... important not to have just a geometry literal. A geometry has characteristics that need to be available. Type of geometry, dimensionality etc
16:39:38 <Linda> ... And there are different serialization options for the position list.
16:39:50 <Linda> ...geosparql used extended wkt for a reason
16:40:21 <Linda> ...bp should be to treat that as a position literal and provide the geometry characteristics outside the literal as well
16:40:50 <Linda> ...will look through AndreaPerego's work
16:40:55 <jtandy> q?
16:41:01 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, Josh
16:41:02 <Linda> AndreaPerego: thanks a lot joshlieberman
16:41:05 <jtandy> ack joshlieberman
16:41:08 <jtandy> ack ClemensPortele
16:42:15 <Linda> ClemensPortele: when we talk about multiple representations we need to recognize there's also the difference between vocabularies where you represent spatial things and the geometry is a characteristic,
16:42:49 <Linda> ... with one serialization,
16:42:50 <jtandy> q?
16:42:54 <AndreaPerego> q+
16:43:04 <Linda> ... or vocabularies that have different serialization options
16:43:14 <joshlieberman_> joshlieberman_ has joined #sdwbp
16:43:14 <jtandy> q?
16:43:17 <jtandy> ack AndreaPerego
16:43:17 <Linda> ...e.g. GML or GeoJSON vs GeoSPARQL
16:43:27 <Linda> AndreaPerego: was trying to take this issue into account
16:43:35 <joshlieberman_> GeoSPARQL: asWKT vs asGML, etc.
16:43:39 <Linda> ... therefore tried to be generic
16:43:57 <jtandy> q?
16:44:09 <Linda> ... and added this in notes instead of the running text
16:44:38 <Linda> ... to really address it you need to add a lot of detail, too much for a BP
16:44:58 <Linda> ... a review by ClemensPortele might help
16:45:07 <ClemensPortele> will do ...
16:45:13 <Linda> jtandy: you are going in the right direction based on the discussion today
16:45:25 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, Clemens!
16:45:40 <Linda> jtandy: all: please continue to support AndreaPerego in unpicking this topic
16:45:57 <jtandy> Topic: Progress on BP 11, 12 and 13
16:46:06 <ClemensPortele> New text: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api
16:46:29 <Linda> ClemensPortele: I just updated the section at the link, both the intro and BP11.
16:46:38 <Linda> ... haven't touched BP12 and 13 yet
16:47:02 <Linda> ... but my feeling is we don't necessarily need these two.
16:47:38 <Linda> ... The last versions of DWBP had updated info on the API topic. I consolidated our text with this.
16:47:51 <Linda> ... making sure we build on that and focus on spatial aspects
16:47:57 <Linda> ... and SDI related topics
16:48:44 <Linda> ... the old BP11 had some ideas for examples, I deleted several of them eg WPS, WMS. These are not really convenience APIs.
16:49:40 <jtandy> q?
16:49:41 <Linda> ... Bart should check if his content is covered correctly
16:50:11 <jtandy> q+
16:50:20 <Linda> ... DWBP has info on subsets of large datasets. We can't add that much to it. Coverages is addressed separately.
16:50:22 <jtandy> q+ to ask about BP13
16:50:32 <jtandy> q?
16:50:34 <Linda> ... potentially we could do a subset example in BP11. Same goes for search.
16:50:42 <Linda> ... therefore BP12 and BP13 could go.
16:51:28 <Linda> jtandy: BP13 is well covered by DWBP.
16:51:46 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdwbp
16:52:03 <Linda> ... I'd like to propose this to a larger group before deciding. Could you start a discussion thread about dropping BP13?
16:52:13 <Linda> ClemensPortele: ok
16:52:29 <jtandy> q?
16:52:34 <jtandy> ack jtandy
16:52:34 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about BP13
16:52:37 <Linda> action ClemensPortele to start a discussion thread on the mailing list about dropping BP13.
16:52:37 <trackbot> Error finding 'ClemensPortele'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
16:53:12 <Linda> action Clemens Portele to start a discussion thread on the mailing list about dropping BP13.
16:53:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Portele to start a discussion thread on the mailing list about dropping bp13. [on Clemens Portele - due 2017-03-08].
16:53:53 <Linda> jtandy: is search special / does it need its own BP?
16:54:02 <jtandy> q?
16:54:10 <Linda> joshlieberman: not sure, it could be merged into something about APIs.
16:54:35 <Linda> ... e.g. what search options would we want to recommend.
16:54:59 <ClemensPortele> Current text: "The API should support queries for spatial things based on user needs. For spatial data, a typical need is to support searching data located in a specific area, for example, an area shown as a map in an application. Where users often look for a particular spatial thing without knowning its identifier, a fault-tolerant free-text search on the name, label or other property may be useful."
16:55:10 <Linda> jtandy: part of a convenience api is providing search for cases where users don't know the identifiers of spatial things.
16:55:18 <Linda> ...would that be enough?
16:55:40 <Linda> ClemensPortele: is the current text (pasted above) enough?
16:56:12 <Linda> joshlieberman: the other important thing is some sort of neighborhood search.
16:56:44 <Linda> jtandy: makes sense
16:56:54 <Linda> ClemensPortele: will add that
16:57:57 <Linda> joshlieberman: near and within covers about 80% of spatial queries
16:58:27 <jtandy> q?
16:59:04 <Linda> jtandy: so we've agreed here that given the minor amendment of BP11, BP12 can go.
16:59:46 <joshlieberman> prese
16:59:52 <Linda> ... wrapping up, I will continue pushing discussions on sameplaceas and BP2.
17:00:29 <Linda> ...Ed, when we resolve to remove BPs, should we have minuted resolutions in a plenary call?
17:00:36 <Linda> eparsons: yes
17:01:02 <Linda> jtandy: then it would be useful to have those resolutions in the next plenary call.
17:01:07 <Linda> eparsons: drop me an email to remind
17:01:35 <Linda> jtandy: thanks everyone including demon Linda
17:01:35 <BartvanLeeuwen> thx
17:01:38 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
17:01:38 <ClemensPortele> thanks and bye!
17:01:39 <BartvanLeeuwen> bye
17:01:40 <eparsons> Thanks Linda + jtandy
17:01:41 <jtandy> bye!
17:01:42 <Linda> jtandy: meeting closed
17:01:44 <joshlieberman> bye
17:01:44 <Linda> bye!
17:01:46 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
17:01:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-sdwbp-minutes.html tidoust
17:01:48 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele has left #sdwbp
19:09:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdwbp