15:30:28 RRSAgent has joined #sdwbp 15:30:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-irc 15:30:29 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:30:30 Zakim has joined #sdwbp 15:30:32 Zakim, this will be SDW 15:30:32 ok, trackbot 15:30:33 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 15:30:33 Date: 10 May 2017 15:30:48 present+ 15:31:08 Present+ eparsons 15:31:19 present+ AndreaPerego 15:31:20 present+ ByronCinNZ 15:31:21 present+ jtandy 15:31:23 scribe: phila 15:31:27 scribeNick: phila 15:31:56 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170510 15:32:02 chair: Jeremy 15:32:13 present+ Francois 15:33:08 present+ billroberts 15:33:35 Topic: preliminaries 15:33:39 Topic: approve minutes 15:33:41 https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes 15:33:44 +1 15:33:46 +1 15:33:52 +1 15:33:55 +1 15:33:56 +1 15:33:57 +1 15:34:15 Topic: Patent CAll 15:34:22 RESOLUTION: Previous minutes approved https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes 15:34:36 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 15:34:45 q+ 15:34:57 Topic: Sprint Status Review 15:34:58 Topic: Sprint status review 15:35:10 s/Topic: Sprint status review// 15:35:30 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017: 15:35:32 MattPerry has joined #sdwbp 15:35:35 jtandy: We did everything except the bits Josh was going to do in BP9 15:35:45 present+ MattPerry 15:35:49 jtandy: I think having the plan like that has been helpful 15:35:58 ... Any questions on the sprint status? 15:35:58 q+ to say we've probably approved the wrong minutes - the last minutes should be here: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes 15:35:59 [None] 15:36:08 ack a 15:36:08 AndreaPerego, you wanted to say we've probably approved the wrong minutes - the last minutes should be here: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes 15:36:40 s/Previous minutes approved https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-sdwbp-minutes/Previous minutes approved https://www.w3.org/2017/04/28-sdwbp-minutes 15:37:20 s/Previous minutes approved https://www.w3.org/2017/04/28-sdwbp-minutes/Previous minutes approved https://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-sdwbp-minutes 15:37:34 Topic: Remaining Issues 15:37:54 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abp 15:37:56 jtandy: Not going to get a great deal of discussion as most have a PR associated with them. 15:38:02 jtandy: These are the 4 BP issues 15:38:11 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/237 15:38:36 jtandy: This asks whether our list of file formats should include scientific file formats 15:38:49 q? 15:38:53 q+ 15:39:05 phila: DWBP avoided discussion of formats 15:39:12 Q+ 15:39:19 jtandy: We discussed this in Delft - and decided to include some. 15:39:29 q? 15:39:35 ack eparsons 15:39:36 ... Personally, I think that the scientific formats are difficult for general Web usage 15:40:07 eparsons: I don't feel strongly, but ... remembering our primary audience. For that mass of people how important are scientific formats for them? 15:40:12 jtandy: I agree 15:40:16 ack ChrisLittle 15:40:44 ChrisLittle: I suggest we put them as examples of how not to do it. Here are some formats with lots of data that are not accessible but used for good tech and historical reasons 15:41:09 ... That might be a nudge to owners of those data sets to offer something else 15:41:18 eparsons: I'll be in St Johns for some of the meeting 15:41:23 jtandy: Chris will be there. 15:41:25 q? 15:41:43 q+ 15:41:47 ack AndreaPerego 15:41:47 jtandy: I hear that we don't need to fix it right now. The wider Web community prob won't want those. 15:42:20 AndreaPerego: I agree that we pro shouldn't include those in the table. But I'm concerned about saying this is a worst practice as it will open a can of worms. 15:42:35 ... Saying what you shouldn't do means providing evidence for why. 15:42:42 jtandy: I also don't like saying this is bad. 15:43:07 ... What I think I hear from Chris is why you might not want to use the following list of sci formats. 15:43:11 q? 15:43:21 jtandy: Can you make a note ChrisLittle to say that in St Johns 15:43:31 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/858 15:43:46 jtandy: This is about the ack section. 15:43:51 ... Purely editorial. 15:44:07 ... We can tidy up the acknowledgement section. We can decide who is and isn't on the list 15:44:21 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/869 15:44:29 jtandy: There's a PR related to this 15:44:42 ... I put in a namespace table, Clemens suggested it wasn't very helpful. 15:44:44 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/873 15:44:57 jtandy: That's adding an id to each example so we can use it 15:45:27 q? 15:45:46 phila: Agh! I though ReSpec added IDs to examples 15:45:55 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments 15:45:58 Topic: Public comments 15:46:10 jtandy: All done except the one marked for Linda to resolve. 15:46:13 [Linda] This is on dataset discovery - it's not a direct comment but can be added as an example to the relevant BP 15:46:13 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Sep/0005.html 15:46:27 jtandy: Linda had a look and said there wasn't really any change to make. 15:46:47 I agree. 15:46:49 eparsons: I agree, it's more an FYI from Dan. 15:47:05 q? 15:47:22 Topic: Review pending Pull Requests for the BP doc 15:47:27 jtandy: Next point is to review our pending pull requests 15:47:36 ChrisLittle has joined #Sdwbp 15:47:36 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp 15:47:48 jtandy: from earliest to newest. 15:47:52 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp 15:47:55 present+ ChrisLittle 15:47:58 ... This is about namespaces and their prefixes 15:48:18 jtandy: If we agree with these changes,then I can merge them straight away 15:48:19 +1 15:48:27 +1 15:48:45 (largely) see here: https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/bp-edit-clemens-ns/bp/index.html#namespaces 15:49:02 ClemensPortele: RDF and XML namespaces are different, so I split them into 2 different sections 15:49:07 ... I also did some corrections. 15:49:23 ... Around GeoSPARQL and GML 15:49:31 ... I split it into 23 sections and added an intro. 15:49:36 s/23/s/ 15:49:54 ClemensPortele: I changed the namespaces, e.g. we had two bag namespaces 15:50:19 s/I split it into s sections and added an intro/I split it into 2 sections and added an intro 15:50:32 jtandy: If you look at the URL I pasted, you can see the raw git 15:50:43 q? 15:51:05 PROPOSED: To accept Clemene's pull request 870 15:51:22 s/PROPOSED: To accept Clemene's pull request 870/PROPOSED: To accept Clemens' pull request 870 15:51:35 +1 15:51:36 +1 15:51:37 +1 15:51:38 +1 15:51:40 +1 15:51:42 +1 15:51:47 jtandy: I think it's a good piece of work and would like it included. 15:51:48 +1 15:52:00 RESOLUTION: To accept Clemens' pull request 870 15:52:20 jtandy: That merge has been made 15:52:21 s/Clemene/Clemence/ 15:52:40 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/871 15:52:49 jtandy: 871 is about unique thing for dctems 15:52:56 s/Clemence/Clemens/ 15:53:10 AndreaPerego: Main issue was that we've been using 3 different prefixes for dcterms 15:53:14 q+ 15:53:16 * Apple spell checker! 15:53:19 q? 15:53:24 ack phila 15:54:52 LarsG has joined #sdwbp 15:54:53 phila: Made some rambling comment about dcterms and dc not being the same - but all is well. dc:description and dcterms:description are the same 15:54:58 https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 15:55:07 present+ 15:55:46 q? 15:55:46 My DC goes to 11 !!! 15:56:01 jtandy: Any more questions wrt Andrea's work on this? 15:56:17 PROPOSED: Accept Andrea's pull request 871 15:56:19 +1 15:56:22 +1 15:56:23 +1 15:56:30 +1 15:56:37 +1 15:56:55 +0 15:56:59 +1 15:57:03 +1 (but I have a conflict of interests) 15:57:03 RESOLUTION: Accept Andrea's pull request 871 15:57:34 jtandy: I'm mnow merging PR 871 15:57:43 s/mnow/now/ 15:57:55 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/874 15:57:58 jtandy: Pull Request 874 15:58:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:58:26 AndreaPerego: This is about an example about referring to metadata published in a Web-friendly way. 15:58:42 ... The PR says it's about BP12 but actually it's about BP13 about metadata 15:58:50 ... Idea is to include it there. 15:59:04 ... It's about an API, work was done around GeoDCAT-AP 15:59:17 ... Uses CSVW interface. 15:59:34 ... Idea is to provide an example for using your geospatial catalogue in a Web-friendly way and in RDF 15:59:46 jtandy: I believe the API is experimental but the practice is not. 15:59:49 AndreaPerego: Yes. 15:59:52 q? 16:00:10 AndreaPerego: It's a thing that can be out on top of any CSW 16:00:17 s/CSVW/CSW/ 16:00:21 s/CSVW/CSW/ 16:00:38 jtandy: We should perhaps add a note that it's only about data APIs 16:00:49 ClemensPortele: It seems clear with the example that we have there. 16:00:54 ... This is editorial. 16:01:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:01:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html phila 16:02:46 Add clarification about metadata API #880 16:02:52 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/880 16:03:02 jtandy: Assigned issue to Clemens 16:03:10 q? 16:03:17 ... It's editorial, so I suggest we vote on accepting this PR 16:03:28 PROPOSED: Accept Pull Request 874 16:03:31 +1 16:03:33 +1 16:03:36 +1 16:03:37 +1 16:03:37 +1 16:03:38 +1 16:03:39 +1 16:03:50 RESOLUTION: Accept Pull Request 874 16:04:06 jtandy: I am merging the pull request 16:04:13 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/875 16:04:14 jtandy: Just 2 more to go 16:04:20 I have to leave now, but will vote +1 on the outstanding PRs and the release of the BP document 16:04:44 AndreaPerego: We have a BP about making data indexable by search engines 16:04:51 ... We talk about using schema.org 16:05:04 ... My proposal is to add an additional pointer to some mapping exercises 16:05:18 ... mapping DCAT-PA and geoDCAT-AP to schema.org 16:05:34 s/DCAT-PA/DCAT-AP/ 16:05:42 ... It's an example of a mapping of an RDF vocab to schema.org 16:05:51 jtandy: This is just an additional Green Note 16:05:56 ... (non-normative) 16:06:04 q? 16:06:09 jtandy: If you click on the file change it's small and self-contained 16:06:16 q? 16:06:27 PROPOSED: Accept Pull request 875 16:06:29 +1 16:06:33 +1 16:06:34 +1 16:06:35 +1 16:06:36 +1 16:06:44 Resolution: Accept Pull request 875 16:06:48 +1 16:06:56 jtandy: Merging now... 16:07:06 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/879 16:07:12 jtandy: Last one is 879 16:07:55 tidoust: Just to satisfy PubRules. There were some markup errors and some encoding issues. We prefer Unicode Form-C apparently 16:08:01 ... There's a mistake in my... 16:08:17 ... There's a reference to the SKOS primer, so I forced it. 16:08:31 q? 16:08:31 ... Both minor things from a PubRules perspective 16:08:36 jtandy: Any questions? 16:08:49 PROPOSED: Accept PR 879 16:08:56 +1 16:08:57 +1 16:08:59 +1 16:09:00 +1 16:09:00 +1 16:09:01 +1 16:09:02 +1 16:09:04 +1 16:09:10 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 879 16:09:18 jtandy: Merging now 16:09:28 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Abp 16:09:38 jtandy: That's an empty list of pull requests 16:09:46 Vote to release a 'final' Working Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice Note 16:09:51 Topic: Vote to release a 'final' Working Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practice Note 16:10:02 q+ 16:10:11 ack phila 16:10:56 phila: Is this the final, final vote? 16:11:17 jtandy: There are bound to be comments/typos etc. from the TC review 16:12:29 phila: Just clarifies - we're now in the hands of the OGC formal process for a BP doc 16:12:39 ... There is no equivalent for this doc at W3C 16:13:05 jtandy: From our POV, this is the final version, modulo any substantive changes that come back from the TC process. 16:13:18 eparsons: We'll need to deal with those of course. 16:13:29 jtandy: This is like an extensive piece of outreach work 16:14:13 phila: So you want to publish this in /TR space 16:14:22 jtandy: Yes, so Scott can point to it 16:14:25 q? 16:14:38 jtandy: Any questions about the doc in its current state? 16:14:47 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#May_-_June_2017: 16:14:52 ... At the bottom of the detailed planning doc 16:15:07 ... There's a discussion about adding ORCIDs 16:15:14 ... We'll do that as and when 16:15:14 q? 16:15:25 q? 16:15:26 ... So, again, any comments or questions? 16:15:27 [None] 16:16:53 PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Draft. 16:17:49 PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Working Draft Note 16:18:05 s/Draft Note/Draft\/Note/ 16:18:19 on behalf of Clemens, Payam, Bart, Linda and Simon :: +1 16:18:23 +1 16:18:27 +1 16:18:27 +1 16:18:28 +1 16:18:29 +1 16:18:29 +1 16:18:31 +1 16:18:31 +1 16:18:39 +1 16:19:01 RESOLUTION: That the editors draft of the Best Practice doc at https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as Final Public Working Draft/Note 16:19:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:19:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html tidoust 16:19:10 Congratulations and Thanks to the Editors !!! 16:19:25 clap clap clap!! 16:19:31 Well done, editors! 16:19:31 resolution: Vote of thanks to Jeremy, Linda and the major contributors 16:19:38 q+ 16:19:44 Topic: Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote 16:19:54 Many, many thanks for the hard work done by the Editors! 16:19:57 ack tidoust 16:20:08 tidoust: Just to clarify that I'll ask for publication tomorrow for W3C 16:20:29 Topic: Details for OGC TC webinar to introduce SDW BP doc prior to TC vote 16:20:31 jtandy: Moans about having to use simplified English. +1 from the scribe 16:20:39 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#SDW_Best_Practice_Webinar 16:20:58 Date: 15-May-2017 Time: 14:00 UTC Videoconference: Goto Meeting 16:21:02 jtandy: You'll see that in order to begin the OGC TC vote, we start with a Go To Webinar 16:21:21 ... As far as I'm aware, it's just a quick run through what the doc is? 16:21:32 eparsons: Think of it as an extended elevator pitch. 16:21:39 jtandy: That's at 14:00 UTC on Monday 16:22:30 jtandy: Who will try and be there? 16:22:31 -1 16:22:36 +1 16:22:38 probably me 16:22:40 -1 16:22:41 phila: Is very sorry but I can't 16:22:47 -1 16:23:12 eparsons: It's not designed for us, it's for everyone else. 16:23:18 q? 16:23:21 Topic: AOB 16:23:23 Topic: AOB 16:23:30 s/Topic: AOB// 16:24:00 eparsons: I'd like to formally express thanks to you, Jeremy and Linda for all the huge amount of work you've done. That on behalf of myself and Kerry 16:24:03 +1 16:24:05 +1 from phila 16:24:08 +1 16:24:10 +1 16:24:10 q? 16:24:11 +1 16:24:14 +1 16:24:29 jtandy: I see no reason for another BP sub group call 16:25:13 jtandy: Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Notably Andrea, Clemens and Bill. 16:25:17 q? 16:25:36 Thanks 16:25:39 bye 16:25:43 bye 16:25:46 Cheerio 16:25:48 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:25:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html tidoust 16:25:50 bye 16:26:10 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:26:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html phila 16:26:18 Bye! 16:26:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:26:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html phila 16:26:39 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:26:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html phila 16:28:14 regrets+ Linda, Simon, Payam, Scott, Bart 16:28:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 16:28:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-sdwbp-minutes.html phila 19:01:54 Zakim has left #sdwbp