13:56:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwbp
13:56:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-irc
13:56:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwbp
13:56:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
13:56:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:56:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
13:56:43 <trackbot> Date: 05 April 2017
13:57:07 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:48 <tidoust> tidoust has joined #sdwbp
14:01:22 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdwbp
14:01:28 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdwbp
14:01:50 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
14:01:56 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
14:03:04 <tidoust> present+ Francois
14:06:59 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
14:07:54 <eparsons> scribe: eparsons
14:08:01 <eparsons> scribenick: eparsons
14:08:42 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
14:09:18 <eparsons> jtandy - work as many issues as possible directed by Linda
14:09:20 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
14:09:56 <eparsons> Linda 3 groups - 1 issues we need to talk about
14:10:07 <eparsons> Linda 2 - issues to review
14:10:29 <eparsons> Linda 3 - Stuff still needs to be done - more work required
14:10:59 <eparsons> Linda - Need a resolution to close issues - all agreed
14:11:33 <eparsons> jtandy - close both in GitHub and minutes
14:11:55 <eparsons> Linda Issue 656 - Geojson new issue
14:12:08 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/656 #656
14:12:15 <jtandy> q?
14:12:46 <eparsons> Linda - interesting address problem with data with large features
14:13:25 <eparsons> Linda - Large arrays of coordinates in a single feature
14:14:59 <eparsons> jtandy - Not common practice yet - we have not heard of it..
14:15:40 <eparsons> Linda - Mention as emerging practice...
14:16:06 <eparsons> billroberts - leave it out, not identified as a problem yet in BP
14:17:53 <eparsons> jtandy - Andrea looking at simplification approaches to simply geometry
14:18:59 <eparsons> jtandy Action to look at both the problem and this as an emerging approach to resolve it
14:20:00 <eparsons> Action eparsons to look at both the geojson size problem and this as an emerging approach to resolve
14:20:09 <trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.
14:20:48 <eparsons> Linda Next Issue 392
14:21:23 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/392 Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic cases (#392)
14:21:35 <eparsons> Linda CRS intro does not talk about non geospatial - eg planetary bodies
14:21:40 <jtandy> q?
14:21:55 <eparsons> jtandy - Close as text of intro changed...
14:22:04 <eparsons> Linda Next issue 382
14:22:30 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/382 How do we ensure alignment between terminology used in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)
14:22:51 <eparsons> Linda josh has started work on spatial ontology but will not be finished
14:23:34 <eparsons> jtandy Issue 6 months old, agree that alignment not possible now - how do we reference ongoing work ?
14:24:06 <eparsons> jtandy - new appendix list of file formats and voacbs could put a paragraph here ?
14:24:32 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#File_formats_and_vocabularies
14:25:36 <eparsons> jtandy Andrea and billroberts working on this new appendix - put a green note about "new" spatial vocab here to be written by Josh
14:26:27 <jtandy> q?
14:27:27 <eparsons> Linda - Next Appendix A Issue 237 scientific formats ?? NetCDF etc
14:27:29 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/237 Appendix A, common formats list: should scientific formats be included? (#237)
14:28:07 <eparsons> jtandy recognise these used often for coverage data - not very webby ?
14:28:44 <eparsons> billroberts - Lists are painful, always miss something
14:29:45 <eparsons> jtandy - Criteria - Open standard (UK gov view of Open) so not shape for example
14:29:59 <eparsons> jtandy Here is the list...
14:30:24 <eparsons> jtandy Currently in the appendix..
14:30:34 <jtandy> File format and vocabulary list:
14:30:34 <jtandy> simple:
14:30:34 <jtandy> - HTML plus json-ld <script> with schema.org vocab
14:30:34 <jtandy> web app:
14:30:35 <jtandy> - GeoJSON
14:30:35 <jtandy> - KML
14:30:35 <jtandy> - JSON?
14:30:35 <jtandy> - GeoRSS?
14:30:35 <jtandy> data integration:
14:30:35 <jtandy> - RDF serialisations...
14:30:36 <jtandy>     - JSON-LD
14:30:36 <jtandy>     - TTL
14:30:37 <jtandy>     - NTRIPLES etc.
14:30:37 <jtandy> ... with associated vocabularies
14:30:37 <jtandy> > W3C Basic Geo, Schema.org GeoSPARQL, DCTerms, LOCN, GeoRSS, vCard?
14:30:37 <jtandy> spatial analysis:
14:30:38 <jtandy> - GML
14:30:38 <jtandy> - GML-SF0
14:31:42 <eparsons> jtandy - other criteria is that the data needs to be useable on the web - e.g. not download all of netcdf datafile
14:34:02 <eparsons> jtandy billroberts can you connect to Andrea and reply this discussion
14:34:49 <eparsons> billroberts - Need to restate criteria
14:35:03 <eparsons> jtandy - Open & Webby
14:35:05 <jtandy> 3 main criteria are: open + spatial (or a container a container for spatial) + webby (e.g. can work with it in a browser)
14:35:36 <jtandy> [convenient to parse in a browser]
14:35:56 <jtandy> [without any special plugins]
14:36:23 <eparsons> billroberts - what does that mean ? open anything is a browser thats non-binanry
14:37:07 <jtandy> + mustn't be a "one organisation" format
14:37:58 <eparsons> billroberts - will look at list and come back...
14:38:00 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/223
14:38:04 <eparsons> Linda Next Issue 223
14:38:17 <eparsons> Linda Illustrate role of SDI's
14:38:43 <eparsons> Linda - Section 10 why do more that the traditional SDI...
14:38:51 <eparsons> Linda - I think we have dome this
14:38:59 <eparsons> Linda - We can close
14:39:01 <jtandy> s/dome/done/
14:39:06 <jtandy> q?
14:39:07 <eparsons> jtandy - yes
14:40:12 <jtandy> Proposal: we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put the necessary text into section 10
14:40:15 <jtandy> +1
14:40:15 <Linda> +1
14:40:17 <eparsons> +1
14:40:27 <jtandy> Resolved: we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put the necessary text into section 10
14:40:29 <billroberts> +1
14:40:53 <eparsons> Linda : Next Issue 81 OLD one
14:41:16 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/81 Devise a way to make best versus emerging practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)
14:41:56 <eparsons> jtandy Only one was use of Void - all will be in the emerging interoperability section
14:42:10 <eparsons> jtandy - Source Linda your paper
14:42:34 <eparsons> jtandy - issues where we have no recommendation - a bear trap !!
14:43:56 <jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch)
14:43:59 <jtandy> +1
14:44:30 <jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
14:44:34 <eparsons> +1
14:44:36 <tidoust> +1
14:44:37 <billroberts> +1
14:44:37 <Linda> +1
14:44:46 <jtandy> +1
14:44:52 <jtandy> Resolved: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
14:45:21 <eparsons> jtandy Do these have reference in the document
14:46:08 <eparsons> action linda cross reference github with document for closes issues
14:46:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Cross reference github with document for closes issues [on Linda van den Brink - due 2017-04-12].
14:46:15 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38
14:46:43 <eparsons> jtandy Mapping of vocabs we are not going to be able to do - suggest we close
14:47:19 <eparsons> jtandy - Don't have time or resources within the SDW group
14:47:29 <tidoust> i/Linda Issue 656/Topic: Should we reference GeoJSON text sequences (#656)/
14:47:37 <tidoust> i/Linda Next Issue 392/Topic: Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic cases (#392)/
14:47:42 <tidoust> i/Linda Next issue 382/Topic: How do we ensure alignment between terminology used in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)/
14:47:46 <tidoust> i/Linda - Next Appendix A/Topic: Appendix A, common formats list: should scientific formats be included? (#237)/
14:47:46 <jtandy> Proposed: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping) because we have neither the time nor resource to do this - the follow on group could pick this up if need be
14:47:48 <Linda> +1
14:47:51 <eparsons> +1
14:47:53 <tidoust> +1
14:47:54 <jtandy> +1
14:47:59 <jtandy> Resolved: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping) because we have neither the time nor resource to do this - the follow on group could pick this up if need be
14:48:07 <tidoust> i|https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/223|Topic: Need to illustrate role of SDIs in publishing spatial data on the Web (#223)|
14:48:10 <tidoust> i/Linda : Next Issue 81/Topic: Devise a way to make best versus emerging practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)/
14:48:14 <tidoust> i|https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38|Topic: Mappings between vocabularies about spatial things (#38)|
14:48:20 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
14:48:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes.html tidoust
14:48:42 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/36
14:49:56 <tidoust> i|https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/36|Topic: Write a shared note with the DWBP (#36)|
14:50:37 <tidoust> Present+ Alexa
14:50:46 <tidoust> Scribe: Francois
14:50:49 <tidoust> Scribenick: tidoust
14:51:13 <tidoust> Topic: Make Best Practices more open (#230)
14:51:19 <tidoust> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/230
14:51:42 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225
14:51:42 <tidoust> Linda: Can be discussed with #229 and #225
14:52:07 <tidoust> ... I made a comment on #225 this afternoon.
14:52:28 <tidoust> ... We should probably update the abstract
14:52:42 <jtandy> q?
14:53:16 <tidoust> ... Sections 9, 12.5 and 12.7 could be amended
14:53:53 <tidoust> jtandy: We were advocating a linked data approach. Use URIs for things and link to other people things, but we also said that we do not want to be overly dependent on RDF.
14:54:10 <tidoust> ... The other sections look good now.
14:54:21 <tidoust> Linda: I agree. Only the abstract needs to be adjusted now.
14:54:32 <tidoust> eparsons: I agree. The gist of it, we've already addressed.
14:55:11 <tidoust> jtandy: We're now a much more balanced document in that regard
14:55:42 <tidoust> billroberts: Yes, if you're talking about the web, you're talking about URIs and links. Linked data is not really more than that.
14:56:17 <tidoust> jtandy: I agree that we don't want to give the message that RDF is the only solution. [quoting from the linked data section]
14:57:09 <tidoust> ... You can do linked data with RDF, microformats, lots of things
14:57:20 <tidoust> Linda: So agreement that we just need to update the Abstract?
14:57:26 <tidoust> jtandy: Affirmative.
14:59:09 <phila> phila has joined #sdwbp
14:59:13 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes.html eparsons
14:59:18 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Editorial
14:59:53 <jtandy> Linda vd Brink | Update Abstract to reflect Linked Data approach without reliance on RDF
15:00:41 <tidoust> jtandy: I see you closed #230, I'll just add a note about reference to linked data principles in BP14.
15:00:50 <tidoust> ... #229 is closed as well, good.
15:01:08 <tidoust> ... Do we want to make sure that Eric is comfortable with that?
15:01:11 <tidoust> Linda: Will do.
15:01:43 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/205
15:01:54 <tidoust> Topic: Is "interoperability" also a top-level problem (alongside discoverability and accessibility)? (#205)
15:02:23 <tidoust> Linda: Jeremy, you re-wrote a sentence in the introduction, so I guess we can close it.
15:02:31 <phila> chair: Jeremy
15:02:54 <tidoust> jtandy: I cannot think of anything else that we could do, so I agree.
15:03:36 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170405
15:03:57 <jtandy> Proposed: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning "interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already update the BP doc to reflect this
15:03:58 <Linda> +1
15:04:04 <jtandy> +1
15:04:07 <tidoust> +1
15:04:08 <billroberts> +1
15:04:15 <jtandy> Resolved: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning "interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already update the BP doc to reflect this
15:04:17 <eparsons> +1
15:04:30 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/520
15:04:31 <tidoust> Topic: Complete BP about metadata (#520)
15:05:14 <tidoust> Linda: About current BP1, some inconsistency. Also DCAT is not the only solution.
15:05:25 <tidoust> ... Josh's work should have addressed this already.
15:05:59 <tidoust> [having a look at Josh's work in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/624 ]
15:06:48 <tidoust> jtandy: I'm content that Josh's work has addressed this. There is also an action on me to update BP4 about ensuring that your metadata is also accessible.
15:06:54 <jtandy> see my task here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP4:_Make_you_data_indexable_by_search_engines
15:07:03 <jtandy> "Minor edits to reflect discussion about 'indexable dataset metadata' (e.g. dataset landing pages) during Delft F2F
15:07:03 <jtandy> "
15:07:18 <jtandy> q?
15:07:20 <tidoust> jtandy: So I think we can close that one.
15:08:10 <jtandy> Proposed: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve this concern
15:08:15 <Linda> +1
15:08:16 <tidoust> +1
15:08:17 <eparsons> +1
15:08:17 <jtandy> +1
15:08:22 <jtandy> Resolved: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve this concern
15:08:54 <tidoust> Topic: Example target doesn't resolve: geo.resc.info (#482)
15:09:04 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/482
15:09:16 <tidoust> Linda: I think the link is gone by now.
15:09:19 <tidoust> eparsons: BP11
15:10:35 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) - this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an example
15:10:38 <Linda> +1
15:10:40 <eparsons> +1
15:10:43 <tidoust> +1
15:10:45 <jtandy> +1
15:10:54 <billroberts> +1
15:11:00 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) - this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an example
15:11:16 <jtandy> q?
15:11:43 <tidoust> Topic: Do we also need to introduce spatial relationships? (#383)
15:11:44 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/383
15:12:10 <tidoust> Linda: Covered in BP14, I think
15:12:28 <tidoust> jtandy: Yes.
15:12:55 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) - this is now covered in BP14
15:12:57 <Linda> +1
15:13:03 <jtandy> +1
15:13:07 <eparsons> +1
15:13:15 <tidoust> +1
15:13:20 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) - this is now covered in BP14
15:14:02 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/251
15:14:02 <tidoust> Topic: Good practice for publishing geometry of a thing as different geometry types (#251)
15:14:32 <tidoust> jtandy: I suggest we flag it for Andrea and leave it open.
15:14:55 <tidoust> ... I'm going to copy that in BP11 and add that he should check that up as well.
15:15:28 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP8:_Provide_Geometries_in_a_web_friendly_way
15:15:41 <tidoust> Topic: B. Authoritative sources (#231)
15:15:43 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/231
15:16:36 <tidoust> jtandy: I re-wrote the appendix, now absorbed in different parts of the document.
15:17:06 <tidoust> ... Under BP14.
15:17:08 <jtandy> http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/7000000000030505
15:17:17 <tidoust> ... The fact is we're still using identifiers such as the above one.
15:17:29 <tidoust> eparsons: The problem is that he says they are not stable
15:18:26 <tidoust> jtandy: We got the detailed one and the 50k gazeteers
15:18:33 <tidoust> ... Do we want to swap that out to GeoNames?
15:18:46 <tidoust> eparsons: These are illustrative. We're not expecting people to make use of them.
15:19:11 <tidoust> ... But to answer Pete's point, we should address that.
15:19:40 <jtandy> In contrast, the resource identified by http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/50kGazetteer/81103 defines Edinburgh as a named place of type city. This is not the same as the City of Edinburgh Area and therefore use of the owl:sameAs relationship is inappropriate.
15:19:40 <eparsons> http://www.geonames.org/2650225
15:19:49 <tidoust> jtandy: I think there should be a Geonames definition of Edinburgh that we could use.
15:19:51 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#entity-level-links
15:20:38 <tidoust> ... [quoting the current text, see above]. I'm suggesting that we substitute the 50KGazetteer URL with the GeoNames one.
15:20:56 <tidoust> eparsons: I'll do that.
15:22:14 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP14:_Publish_links_between_spatial_things_and_related_resources
15:22:49 <tidoust> Topic: Methodology for selecting a spatial vocabulary is not yet defined. (#214)
15:22:52 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/214
15:23:48 <tidoust> Linda: The section does not really give you a methodology. Is this what the new appendix is giving you?
15:24:32 <tidoust> jtandy: No. There's a bunch of choices which means that you cannot just select a vocabulary right away. There are a number of categorizations of data publications, of which one of them is RDF.
15:24:41 <tidoust> ... We reference the Data on the Web BP spec here.
15:24:50 <tidoust> ... We're not going to give you a list.
15:25:15 <tidoust> ... Bill, I think you're in the best position to tell whether we've sufficiently addressed this in the document?
15:25:26 <tidoust> billroberts: Looking at it.
15:26:26 <tidoust> ... I'll get back to you offline. My feeling is that it's a good idea to refer to Data on the Web BP doc to help you choose a vocabulary rather than doing it in this document.
15:26:41 <tidoust> jtandy: I assigned the issue to you.
15:26:47 <tidoust> Topic: Glossary section needs improving; see existing sources of definitions (#212)
15:26:55 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/212
15:27:16 <tidoust> jtandy: Assigned to Peter Parslow.
15:28:55 <tidoust> Topic: Definition of "spatial data" is required (#206)
15:28:58 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206
15:29:21 <tidoust> Linda: Also related to the Glossary
15:29:42 <tidoust> ... Jeremy, you did some changes to the definition of spatial data. Got some +1s, so people seem happy
15:29:45 <jtandy> Spatial data: Data describing anything with spatial extent; i.e. size, shape or position. In addition to describing things that are positioned relative to the Earth (also see geospatial data), spatial data may also describe things using other coordinate systems that are not related to position on the Earth, such as the size, shape and positions of cellular and sub-cellular features described using the 2D or 3D Cartesian coordinate system of a specific
15:29:45 <jtandy>  tissue sample.
15:31:07 <tidoust> billroberts: We haven't really addressed anything non geospatial
15:31:16 <tidoust> jtandy: That's correct.
15:31:56 <tidoust> Linda: We did receive some comments that we are using the term "spatial" in slightly ambiguous ways sometimes. We could create an action to review that term in the last sprint.
15:32:10 <tidoust> jtandy: OK, I'm going to add it to the Editorial section.
15:32:34 <tidoust> eparsons: There is often confusion between spatial and geospatial. We're as guilty as anybody else.
15:32:55 <tidoust> Linda: If you add it to the editorial section, then we can close this section.
15:33:01 <tidoust> s/section/issue/
15:33:09 <tidoust> jtandy: OK
15:33:15 <jtandy> tbd | Check that we are consistent in use of "geospatial" and "spatial" terms (see GitHub Issue 206)
15:34:14 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data) because the Glossary definition has now been updated - consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned for editorial check during this sprint
15:34:18 <Linda> +1
15:34:20 <tidoust> +1
15:34:20 <jtandy> +1
15:34:21 <eparsons> +1
15:34:25 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data) because the Glossary definition has now been updated - consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned for editorial check during this sprint
15:34:42 <tidoust> Topic: Is the term "subset" correct? (#195)
15:34:42 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/195
15:34:52 <tidoust> jtandy: I think this is time expired
15:35:27 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
15:35:28 <Linda> +1
15:35:29 <eparsons> +1
15:35:31 <billroberts> +1
15:35:31 <tidoust> +1
15:35:36 <jtandy> +1
15:35:39 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
15:35:52 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/190
15:35:53 <tidoust> Topic: Are "content publishers" sufficiently different from the other defined audience categories? (#190)
15:36:20 <tidoust> jtandy: I think I re-wrote the introduction
15:36:46 <tidoust> ... I think it's clear now.
15:37:22 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readersjip
15:37:23 <Linda> +1
15:37:36 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
15:37:40 <Linda> +1
15:37:40 <jtandy> +1
15:37:43 <tidoust> +1
15:37:46 <billroberts> +1
15:37:50 <eparsons> +1
15:37:56 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
15:38:09 <tidoust> Topic: Should content from "Exposing datasets through APIs" be moved to DWBP "Data Access"? (#187)
15:38:19 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/187
15:38:33 <tidoust> jtandy: Time expired
15:39:25 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as this is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both SDW BP11 and DWBP
15:39:29 <Linda> +1
15:39:30 <tidoust> +1
15:39:32 <jtandy> +1
15:39:34 <eparsons> +1
15:39:36 <billroberts> +1
15:39:40 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as this is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both SDW BP11 and DWBP
15:39:40 <jtandy> [16:39:28]  <Linda>	+1
15:39:56 <tidoust> Topic: BP 9 - how to describe relative positions- needs more content (#121)
15:40:13 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/121
15:40:34 <tidoust> Linda: Can be closed, Josh re-wrote it.
15:40:53 <tidoust> jtandy: There's an action on Josh to add data snippets, which he agreed to do.
15:41:15 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9 clarifies concerns about relative positioning
15:41:18 <Linda> +1
15:41:20 <eparsons> +1
15:41:21 <jtandy> +1
15:41:23 <tidoust> +1
15:41:29 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9 clarifies concerns about relative positioning
15:41:33 <tidoust> Topic: Definition of 'Spatial Thing' (#39)
15:41:48 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/39
15:42:11 <tidoust> Linda: Beware, we're doing archeology now. Really old issue.
15:42:26 <tidoust> eparsons: How widely used is "spatial thing" in the document?
15:42:40 <tidoust> jtandy: It's extensively used. We chose to use that term instead of features.
15:43:51 <tidoust> ... I've referenced Peter Parslow and Josh in the issue.
15:44:59 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/37
15:44:59 <tidoust> Topic: Expressing the fuzziness of a spatial thing (#37)
15:45:01 <billroberts> jtandy has updated glossary notes
15:45:22 <billroberts> scribe:billroberts
15:45:22 <tidoust> i/jtandy has updated glossary notes/scribenick: billroberts
15:46:29 <jtandy> search for: published as part of Ordnance Survey’s 50K Gazetteer
15:47:21 <billroberts> jtandy: notes this reference as a place in the document where we discuss fuzzy definitions of a spatial thing
15:48:02 <billroberts> eparsons: this is probably as good as we can do
15:48:25 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) - discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
15:48:28 <Linda> +1
15:48:29 <eparsons> +1
15:48:32 <jtandy> +1
15:48:35 <billroberts> +1
15:48:38 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) - discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
15:49:09 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
15:49:16 <Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/35
15:49:33 <billroberts> Topic: Determine where to place reference to GeoDCAT-AP #35
15:50:55 <billroberts> linda: notes that GeoDCAT-AP is already covered in various places in the document but Andrea reopened the issue
15:51:24 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertient to do so
15:51:38 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
15:51:40 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:51:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes.html eparsons
15:51:41 <Linda> +1
15:51:42 <eparsons> +1
15:51:44 <billroberts> +1
15:51:49 <jtandy> +1
15:51:52 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
15:52:32 <billroberts> Topic: Public Comments
15:52:39 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments
15:53:41 <billroberts> eparsons: process followed: went through email thread on archive to find who initially made the comment, looked through any responses in the thread, emailed the initial commenter to ask if they are happy with how we have dealt with it in updated versions of the document
15:53:41 <eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2015Jul/0007.html
15:54:14 <billroberts> eparsons: refers to hypermedia use.  Largely out of scope
15:54:29 <billroberts> jtandy: charter says it's out of scope
15:54:46 <eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html
15:54:47 <billroberts> eparsons: I think we should give the originator a little longer to respond, then close it
15:55:14 <billroberts> eparsons: came from a colleague of Linda at Geonovum. Covers discoverability and accessibility
15:55:56 <billroberts> eparsons: document structure has been improved since then and we have addressed the excessive focus on RDF.  Waiting to hear back from Simeon on whether he agrees
15:56:33 <eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0007.html
15:56:58 <billroberts> eparsons: regarding potential use of DCAT or similar to partition larger datasets
15:57:31 <billroberts> eparsons: Jon Blower has responded on behalf of Maik Riechert to say Maik is happy to close it
15:57:56 <billroberts> eparsons: I'll update the wiki to note the status of each of the questions
15:59:41 <billroberts> phila: although formal resolution of public comments is not strictly necessary for a Note (rather than a recommendation) it is still best practice and will be useful
16:00:44 <billroberts> jtandy: notes that there is nothing substantive in the public comments which will cause any problems for finalising the document
16:01:26 <billroberts> jtandy: Linda to tidy up the wiki page to note that we have closed lots of issues
16:02:20 <billroberts> jtandy: there are still some issues remaining that need to be assigned to someone.  How should we proceed?
16:02:31 <billroberts> Linda: Let's do that via email
16:02:48 <billroberts> Linda can make a suggestion on who to assign them to
16:03:23 <billroberts> jtandy: issue 509 assigned to Linda
16:03:32 <billroberts> jtandy: issue 381 assigned to jtandy
16:04:50 <jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at Delft F2F
16:04:52 <Linda> +1
16:04:56 <billroberts> +1
16:04:59 <jtandy> +1
16:05:04 <jtandy> Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at Delft F2F
16:05:24 <billroberts> jtandy: spatial operators, issue 298.
16:05:33 <billroberts> linda: Clemens has taken this on
16:05:52 <billroberts> jtandy: issue 193, general editorial point - will add it to the editorial plan
16:06:57 <billroberts> linda: issue 222 is also editorial (consistency in how we cite specifications)
16:07:12 <billroberts> assigned to linda and jeremy
16:08:00 <billroberts> linda: issue 499 is me
16:08:42 <billroberts> linda: issue 654 is a recent addition. Minor correction to Geonames URIs (trailing slash). Assigned to Linda
16:11:11 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
16:11:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-sdwbp-minutes.html tidoust
16:13:51 <billroberts> bye all
17:32:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdwbp
19:49:26 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdwbp
19:58:24 <tidoust> RRSAgent, bye
19:58:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items