Re: SDW WG WS @ INSPIRE 2016

All,

this morning we had the 90 minutes workshop "W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group" at the INSPIRE Conference 2016 (http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016). This is a brief summary of the (good) discussion and feedback we got. I tried to capture the main points, but for sure I will have failed, so amendments and corrections are very welcome :)

Ed, is there a link to the slides that you have shown?

We had about 30 attendees. Ed gave an introduction to the working group and its deliverables. The discussion focussed on the Best Practice deliverable as discussed at TPAC.

TOPIC: Target audience
- Web developers and publishers of data, practioneers
- General agreement in the audience

TOPIC: SDI and the rest
- Need to go beyond SDIs to reach the target audience, the other 99%
- Robin Smith, JRC: Needs to be done responsibly to avoid that something like another SDI is created.
- Ed: Agreed, it is important not to reinvent the wheel
- Markus Jobst, AT: Need the "middleware" to make it work
- Jandirk Bules, NL: (not recorded)
- Erwin Folmer, NL: need to target the data providers to make sure we can serve the other 99%

TOPIC: Spatial things, features and geometry
- Different terminology used outside of the GI community
- The lighthouse example
- "Feature" typically understood as a capability of a software
- It is also more blurred whether we talk about a digital abstraction or the real-world entity
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: agrees
- Markus Jobst, AT: Feels a bit like reinventing the wheel
- Robin Smith, JRC:  Education is required, but "spatial things" is good because it captures peoples attention
- Hugo de Groof, DG ENV: Why not just use "object"?
- Alex Ramage, UK: Defnition needs to be clear

TOPIC: BP7 - Use persistent HTTP identifiers
- Robin Smith, JRC: Context is important, requires understanding of what change means, when does the thing needs a new identifier
- Ed: A key aspect is that there is a URI for each identifier
- Alex Ramage, UK: Agrees with Robin, e.g. road feature split into parts will receive new identifiers
- Clemens: The BP is conceptually consistent with INSPIREs support for persistent identifiers. It mainly is a challenge for those that do not yet manage persistent identifiers and/or to run the infrastructure to resolve feature URIs
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Key is a resolvable identifier that follows the life-cycle of the object
- Markus Jobst, AT: When I move the lighthouse or change it to a chapel, does it get a new identifier?
- Jandirk Bulens, NL: Different function -> new thing -> new identifier
- Straw poll: 50% in the room are responsible for publishing, half of them working with HTTP URIs

TOPIC: BP4 - Make data indexable by search engines
- Is it practicable? No comment from the audience.
- Is it understood?
- Erwin Folmer, NL: More than just an HTML page is needed (annotations etc)
- Robin Smith, JRC: Geoportals still have their place, where they add value and organise the content
- Ed: BPs should be done/doable in addition to current practice of the GI community
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: A good approach, goes beyond the current metadata approach in SDIs; need to clarify how it works with, e.g., coverages
- Clemens: The search engines also need to clarify how a large number of features should be published so that they will make them discoverable

TOPIC: BP8 - Provide geometries in a usable way
- Alex Ramage, UK: Support the CRS "you" need or "they" (the users) need. Rather "they"?
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Encoding is always confusing, GeoJSON, JSON-LD, CovJSON. Which encoding to use? On the CRS: ETRS89 vs Web Mercator
- Jandirk Bulens, NL: Use what the community has already specified and uses
- Clemens: DWBP has recommendation to support multiple encodings, where feasible. CRS: WGS84 most commonly expected/assumed, but also native CRS should be published, often the national CRS

TOPIC: BP10 - Spatial semantics for spatial things
- Robin Smith, JRC: What is the "best" vocabulary? Examples? Impact on interoperability?
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Points to the ISA Core Location Vocabulary
- Clemens: ISA Core Location Vocabulary identifies what is a geometry, but not which vocabulary to use. Could be amended in the future with recommendations, if there is a proper best practice
- Jandirk Bulens, NL: Topological relationships are important
- Clemens: Yes, current idea to agree on a list of spatial and temporal relationships and register them with IANA
- NN: What is the value of publishing spatial data on the web? Value is with publishing objects that are of interest (to the domain). It is different whether you publish data or something that answers a question.

TOPIC: List of BPs
- Can we identify priorities? Anything not on the list? Anything unclear?
- Martin Tuchyňa, SK: There is pressure to have the link to e-government, using linked data. Guidance where to start and where to end is needed. The was a project providing recommendations on this. maybe the BPs could describe a list of steps to be taken.
- Joeri Robbrect, DG ENV: Add BP to publish multiple encodings
- Clemens: DWBP covers this, not shown here but is referenced
- Roberto Lucchi, Esri: Most BP titels are not really "spatial", which other communities have been successful with these practices?
- Erwin Folmer, NL: Two additional BPs: a) How to reuse existing infrastructure, easy steps for data providers. b) Queries are important, but unclear how to query distributed data holdings on the web since there are different APIs (SPARQL, etc).
- Robin Smith, JRC: BP14 (publish links to related resources) is key for creating value for the 99%
- Alex Ramage, UK: Data user could quickly become a data publisher to someone else.

Ed closed the workshop with a call to read look at the wiki, read the document and send comments!

On 28 Sep 2016, at 17:04, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:

Dears,

All going well, we'll have the video recording of the workshop, which can be used to complement possible gaps in the minutes.

BTW, for those who may be interested, the video recording of the SDW WG workshop at INSPIRE 2014 is available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P02vocsKks


Starring (in alphabetical order):
- Alex Coley
- Bart De Lathouwer
- Ed Parsons
- Phil Archer


Cheers,

Andrea


On 28/09/2016 14:58, Tandy, Jeremy wrote:
I agree. Jeremy


_______________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Tandy | Technology Fellow
*Met Office*, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
email: jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> | web: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>

/See our guide to climate change at/ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate

change/guide/

On 28 Sep 2016, at 13:54, Clemens Portele
<portele@interactive-instruments.de<mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>
<mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>> wrote:

IRC makes sense during a meeting, but in this case I think capturing
the feedback in an email to the list should be sufficient?

Clemens


On 28 Sep 2016, at 14:49, Tandy, Jeremy
<jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>> wrote:

Notes / IRC sound good to me. Basically - if you collect (valuable)
input for the BP doc, we editors need to know what that is. If the
input comes from a specific person / organisation it would be good to
ask if we could follow up later to clarify ... so please get contact
details :-)

J


_______________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Tandy | Technology Fellow
*Met Office*, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
email: jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> | web:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>

/See our guide to climate change at/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate change/guide/

On 28 Sep 2016, at 13:47, Andrea Perego
<andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:

' Thanks, Ed.

I think that notes would be perfectly fine - and maybe they can be
logged in the IRC (wifi permitting).

But maybe Linda and Jeremy have different preferences.

Andrea


On 28/09/2016 11:27, Ed Parsons wrote:
Thanks Guys,

Looks Good, how would you like the feedback collected ? Should we just
take notes or would you like something more structured ?

Clemens, I'm happy to MC the session if you want to collect the
feedback ?

Ed


On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 at 09:58 Andrea Perego
<andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>
wrote:

  Dear Ed, all,

  As agreed in Lisbon, we drafted a programme for the SDW Workshop
at the
  INSPIRE 2016 conference, which is now available on the WG wiki:

  https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SDW_Workshop_@_INSPIRE_2016#Background_.26_purpose_of_workshop


  Because of time constraints (1.5h), the idea is to focus the
discussion
  on the BP deliverable, in particular on those BPs we see as most
  relevant to the audience (these are listed in the wiki page).

  We think it would be relevant to get feedback both from the people
  already doing "spatial data on the Web" (do the BPs provide a good
  enough coverage of the issues they had to face and the solutions
they
  adopted?), and those who plan to do them (do the BPs provide clear
  enough guidance on how to do that?)

  The idea is also to explain that we're trying to "crack open" their
  datasets, so that each individual "data item" (spatial thing) is
  addressable in the Web's information space.

  Do you think this make sense?

  The wiki page includes also a tentative agenda. Probably, to get
  feedback in a more effective way, it would good to have break out
  sessions on the selected BPs, but I don't know if this is
feasible, and
  it probably depends on how many people will join the workshop.
When we
  had the SDW workshop at INSPIRE 2014 in Aalborg, we had around 150
  people attending, and this year we have around 1,000
participants at the
  INSPIRE conference (more than in 2014). However, since the
workshop is
  on Friday, we may have a smaller audience.

  Thanks!

  Linda, Jeremy and Andrea



  On 05/08/2016 15:07, Andrea Perego wrote:
Dear colleagues,

This is to let you know that the SDW workshop proposal for INSPIRE
  2016
has been accepted, and it is scheduled on Friday, Sep, 30th, at 9AM:

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/wsl


Cheers,

Andrea

On 10/06/2016 15:58, Andrea Perego wrote:
Thanks, Clemens.

This being the situation, probably we should consider having an oral
presentation, in case it won't be actually possible to run a
  workshop.

Meanwhile, I submitted a draft proposal. I include below the relevant
parts for you to review. Please change it as you see fit.

Thanks

Andrea

----

WORKSHOP PROPOSAL

TITLE: W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group

ABSTRACT:

The Spatial Data on the Web Working Group (SDW WG) is a joint
  initiative
of the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Open Geospatial
  Consortium (OGC)
aiming
to bridge the geospatial technologies and the Web, thus
  facilitating the
publication and use of spatial data across platforms and communities.

In order to achieve this, the SDW WG is working on a set of
deliverables, described in the WG Charter
(https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter), covering best
  practices for
the publication of spatial data on the Web, based on identified use
cases and requirements, plus the standardisation of a set of
  ontologies
(Time Ontology, Semantic Sensor Network Vocabulary, Coverages in
Linked Data).

The workshop is meant to illustrate the work done so far, by
  providing
an overview of the current version of the deliverables, and to
  collect
feedback from participants on the proposed solutions and open issues.

AGENDA:

- Introduction & purpose of the workshop
- Background and objectives of the SDW WG
- Overview of SDW WG deliverables
- Breakout sessions
- Summary from breakout sessions & conclusions

----


On 09/06/2016 19:09, Clemens Portele wrote:
Andrea,

while I will likely be in Barcelona on Tuesday and Friday
  morning, do
not make the planning dependent on me. There are other
  submissions that
I am involved in and I expect to be already quite busy during
  the week.
If I do not have a session conflict I will attend the workshop and
contribute to the discussion as good as possible, but right now
  I cannot
commit to a more active role.

Best regards,
Clemens

On 9 June 2016 at 15:24:41, Andrea Perego
(andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
  <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
  <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
  <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>)
wrote:

Jon, Clemens, Ed,

Thanks for your mails!

So, the preference for the workshop would be:
- 1st choice: Friday (morning?), 1.5 hours
- 2nd choice: Tuesday morning, 1.5 hours

@Jon, @Clemens, would both dates suit you well?

About the agenda, I wonder what you think should be included.

Just trying a possible outline:

- Introduction to SDW WG & purpose of the workshop
- Overview of deliverables
- Breakout sessions on selected topics from BP / UCR & SDW
  ontologies
- Summary of breakout sessions & conclusions

Covering all the deliverables in 1.5 hours is probably too
  much, but
the
agenda & the discussion topics could be refined based on the
outcomes of
the f2f at the TPAC.

Does this make sense to you?

Thanks!

Andrea


On 09/06/2016 10:17, Ed Parsons wrote:
HI Andrea,

I can be there with a probability of 1.0 on the 30th, 0.7 on the
27th,
0.1 on the 26th !

Ed


On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 21:57 Jon Blower
  <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
<mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
<mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk
  <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>>> wrote:

I will probably be there (75% confidence level), but not all
  week.

Cheers,
Jon

On 8 Jun 2016, at 20:50, Andrea Perego
<andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
  <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
  <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>> wrote:

Dear all,

During today's call [1], we briefly discussed the option of
submitting a workshop proposal to INSPIRE 2016, considering also
that this would be an opportunity to get feedback on the new
versions of the deliverables.

May I ask you who from the WG plans to be at the INSPIRE
conference? According to the draft programme [2], time slots
  for the
workshops are 1.5 hour, and are scheduled on Monday (26th),
  Tuesday
morning (27th), and Friday (30th).

NB: I kindly ask you to let me know ASAP, since the
  deadline for
submission if this Friday.

Thanks!

Andrea

----
[1]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes#item04




  [2]http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/ovw



On 08/06/2016 10:37, Andrea Perego wrote:
Thanks, Kerry.

I would like to add another item to the agenda, following
  up from

https://www.w3.org/2016/05/11-sdw-minutes#item02


As you know, the INSPIRE conference this year will be in
Barcelona,
right after the W3C TPAC:

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/


We (JRC) think it would be good to present the work done
  by the
SDW WG,
and collect feedback.

So, I wonder whether we can devote 5 minutes to discuss the
possibility
of proposing a workshop during today's call.

The deadline for submission is quite close (June, 10th),
  but we
just
need a short abstract (max 400 words) and filling in a
  template
[1].

Thanks in advance

Andrea

----



  [1]http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/Workshop_template_2016.doc






On 07/06/2016 14:20, Kerry Taylor wrote:
G’day,

The full SDW meeting this week will be held at the usual time
and place:
*8 June 2016 13:00 GMT



  <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20160608T13&p1=1440&ah=1>*




Agenda:

1. ISSUE-18 model reuse
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18> and
  ISSUE-19
Multiple types of coverage
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19> and Related
actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115)
2. ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32>
3. F2F meeting plan


  <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon>
4. UCR completion
5. Spatial ontology: next steps

More details and dial-in instructions:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160608


--Kerry & Ed

--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/



--

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501 <tel:020%207881%204501>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>
<http://www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>>
  <http://www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>> @edparsons


--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/




  --
  Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
  Scientific / Technical Project Officer
  European Commission DG JRC
  Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
  Unit B6 - Digital Economy
  Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
  21027 Ispra VA, Italy

  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


  ----
  The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
  not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
  position of the European Commission.

--

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501 <tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> <http://www.edparsons.com/>
<http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons


--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.



--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.