SDW WG Weekly

11 Feb 2015


See also: IRC log


eparsons, Frans, kerry, Clemens, +1.412.390.aaaa, CoryHenson, Payam, DanhLePhuoc, MattPerry, ingo, billroberts, +61.4.331.2.aabb, ahaller2, SimonCox, ChrisLit, aharth, IanHolt, RaulGarciaCastro, Alejandro_Llaves, Ioannis, Linda, Adila, +34.65.631.aacc, OscarCorcho, AndreaPerego, AndreasHarth
Rachel_Heaven, Krzysztof_Janowicz, Antoine_Zimmermann


<phila> chair: Ed

<Clemens> I??P8 is me

<Frans> How can you tell wich P* is you?

<RaulGarciaCastro> Frans, Looking at the chat in the moment you connect

<Frans> thanks Raul

`scribe: kerry

<scribe> scribe: kerry

<eparsons> Thanks Kerry !

<Ioannis> zakim ?? p25 is me

<SimonCox> zakim said +Simon when I think I connected, but my IRC tag is SImonCox

meeting starts

<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/02/04-sdw-minutes.html

<SimonCox> +1

<Frans> +1

<Clemens> +1

propose: approve previous minutes -- ed

<MattPerry> +1


<phila> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<ChrisLit> +1

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call


<phila> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/02/04-sdw-minutes.html

eparsons points out patent call

agenda item 1 new members?

billroberts introduction

<phila> present RaulGarciaCastro

swrl in uk, lod publishing with technology, help to do things like other people , based in manchester

no more new attendees

<Ioannis> +Zakim, ??P25 is me

inext agenda item : adding items to agenda

please email to list by FRIDAy of previous week before meeting

<Adila> zakim who is on the phone?

all members can ask for items on agenda to be considered by the chairs

<ChrisLit> +1

<billroberts> +1

<Frans> +!

<IanHolt> +1

<ingo> +1

<Frans> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

next agenda item: clarify use case work

frans had cirulated some questions

Clarifying Use Cases Work

frans: from use cases to requirments -- want to invite externals

phil has asked public LOD gropu already

<phila> Phil A's mail to the LOD list

ed: broader range of use cases as we can -- we should reach out --open activity

happy to get feedback/input

frans -- e.g. developers who may not be here

ed: what are we missing?


frans: invite them to look things over

kerry: share use cases with web of things?

<phila> The Web of Things Interest Group

<ChrisLit> +q

chrislittle: I approached medical domain people and medical/environmental, I dont have anything yet

chris: also talking to 3D people

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about medical and satellites

phil: medical university member is joining wg to add stuff for us in this domain

<billroberts> +q process for contributing use cases?

phil: satellite imagery and sensors chinese academy of sciences -- but meeting time is bad for them

<SimonCox> And Melbourne!

<Zakim> process, you wanted to discuss contributing use cases?

scribe is lost...

<eparsons> edit the wiki !!

<billroberts> understood! will do

eparsons: cut off date prior to f2f

cutoff date for use cases on wiki to be 1 march


<Linda> +1

<ChrisLit> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<OscarCorcho> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<CoryHenson> +1

<billroberts> +1

<Frans> Is the cutoff date the same as the start date for requirements?

PROPOSED: deadline for use cases 1 March

<IanHolt> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<Clemens> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<Frans> +1

<Adila> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Ioannis> +1


<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<billroberts> what's the likely frequency of F2F meetings? (speaking as someone who can't make the March Barcelona mtg due to prior obligations)

requirements development will start at the f2f meeting, including grouping common requirements

ed: is this ok? other views?

frans: I start seeing things already emerging from use cases : also this is the time to invite external stakeholders

clemens: some use cases are general, others specific

<Zakim> Clemens, you wanted to discuss detail of use cases

clemens: most use cases will need more work before requirements emerge

ed: process on document development -- use cases may be brought up to common level as we develop the deliverable?

<ChrisLit> +q

phil: generally editors will be responsible for this , there will be a style by looking at other use case documents

ed: at some point the whole group must be satisfied, all drafts visible on github,

each doc gets url plus latest version url that allows for keep updating, you can publish first draft when it is not finished but is ready for public comments

<Frans> So it is up to the editors to get started with the requirements document?

once it transitions to TR space it cannot then be edited

chris: suggest editors take whats on wiki then structure with actors, processes, tabular format bu we do not lose original text -- need to trace back to original

ed: use cases finishes 1 march, then a couple of weeks starting on doc, and f2f to validate and same page

<billroberts> yep +1

<IanHolt> +1

<Frans> +1

<ChrisLit> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<CoryHenson> +1

editors for use case deliverable

phil: meeting new head of standards of OGC tomorrow to ensure we can line up for both standards bodies

<phila> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp

phil: explains w3c process by reference to data on the web

<phila> https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-pages/bp.html

<phila> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

html has a lot missing, because respec adds this stuff like headers and TOC

editor must write html by hand or there are special editors, but you do not do logos or style sheets

phil: respec becomes easy to use,phil and ingo will help

ed: send email to put your hand up:


ingo: docs go through several committees

<ChrisLit> +q

<Linda> +q

chirs: tech commitee then planning ctee process is getting looser, standards groups can do prelim releases to public before freezing doc

<ChrisLit> -q

<SimonCox> use-case document would probably be OGC 'Discussion Paper' ?

linda: is the OGC view that we are SWG or DWG?

<SimonCox> It will not recommend any tech or practices, therefore not a 'Best Practice'

<phila> Here's an example of a first public working draft of a use case document. Note the open issues etc http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-csvw-ucr-20140327/

ed: dwg , but we will create SWG when we are ready

<Clemens> +1 to Simon

<SimonCox> SWG per normative recommendation

simon: use case doc is not a "best practice" in ogc, more likely a discussion paper

ed: aob?
... summarises use case development plan
... close meeting