Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

29 Jul 2015

See also: IRC log


phila, kerry, Alejandro_Llaves, SimonCox, Linda, BartvanLeeuwen, Armin, Bill, Kerry, Matt, jtandy, MattPerry, AndreaPerego, joshlieberman, billroberts, Chris, frans
Lars_Svensson, Rachel_Heaven, Ed_Parsons, Clemens_Portele, Stefan_Lemme, Lewis


<trackbot> Date: 29 July 2015


<kerry> scribe: armin

<kerry> scribenick: ahaller2

<phila> proposed: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

<AndreaPerego> Was not there.

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<jtandy> +1

<Linda> +1

<phila> +1

<phila> resolved: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-sdw-minutes.html

Kerry: Patent Call

phila: Patent Call is important
... on the W3C side of things, an automated email will be send to the group which asks the same question as the OGC patent call.

Kerry: Use Cases and Requirements, two issues to resolve today


Kerry: ISSUE-21: phrasing of the linkability requirement

<Alejandro_Llaves> "Spatial data on the Web should be linkable (by explicit relationships between different data in different data sets), to other spatial data and to or from other types of data."

Alejandro: 'facts' were changed to 'features'
... 'explicit relationships between data' is the new proposal

<AndreaPerego> "Feature" is a notion that is not straightforward for non-specialists.

<phila> I like that wording

<phila> issue-21?

<trackbot> issue-21 -- phrasing of the linkability requirement -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21

jtandy: like the current wording

<phila> RESOLVED: That Issue-21 be rephrased as shown above

<joshlieberman> "facts" is sufficiently generic as to not cause problems, I suppose.

jtandy: ISSUE-21 resolved as discussed with new phrasing


<SimonCox> @josh - 'facts' now changed to 'data'

kerry: ISSUE-22 next to discuss

<joshlieberman> @SimonCox -- just can't keep up...

<Alejandro_Llaves> "There should be a standardised way for expressing spatial relationships between spatial entities. These relationships can be topological, mereological, directional or distance related."

Alejandro: change of phrasing, changed to 'spatial relationships'


<SimonCox> +1

<phila> Seems like a no brainer to me

<Linda> +1

<phila> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<billroberts> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<jtandy> 'spatial relationships' works for me ... didn't know what meronymy meant!

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<jtandy> +1

ISSUE-22 resolved, using new wording

<SimonCox> Voges out for 16

<phila> RESOLVED: Close Issue-22 using new wording

<joshlieberman> "partOf"

Andrea: can we use another term than mereological

<SimonCox> "part-whole"

Andrea: can we find another way to rephrase it?

<SimonCox> whole

Kerry: It is in the Use Case document, not Best practises, acceptable for me

jtandy: Did not know that the word existed 20 minutes ago

<SimonCox> Ignorami!

Kerry: Are we happy to leave it?

jtandy: Happy as it is if it is an example


<phila> A definition of Mereology

<Linda> +1

<billroberts> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation

best practice editors' report

<AndreaPerego> +1 but it should leave open the possibility of replacing it with something less specialistic

jtandy: URI of the Wiki page for the BP Consolidation
... we have 1-17, 32-41 of the use cases consolidated now

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Talk:BP_Consolidation

<Alejandro_Llaves> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidation

<SimonCox> Comments on the GeoJSON list: "seems to be taking a shotgun approach with many people throwing in their favorite bits. I’d hate to imagine the outcome if a committee were to design something based on it. "

jtandy: aim was to make them easy to find in search engines

<SimonCox> (That's comments on the UCR document)

jtandy: and other considerations in the discussion page on the wiki

<ChrisLittle> zakim present

Kerry: publishing a spatial data, consumers can use the data in some other context, and want the dataset be usable

<ChrisLittle> zakim present+

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives

jtandy: if you have ideas like the one kerry raised, please put them on the wiki
... common themes are, linking data, publishing data with clear semantics
... partial overlap with data on the web best practise group
... third theme, expose datasets through APIs
... enabling discoverability is another theme
... assigning identifiers is fifth theme
... expressing geospatial information is the last theme
... linda provided another use case, geometry is 95% of the data size in the Dutch use case

Linda: put this in the use case as a question, if optimisation is needed

<joshlieberman> Is this an argument for implementing the distinction between feature and geometry, so that geometries can be linked in as needed?

jtandy: implication of performance in queries with polygons with for example 5000 points
... the number of times new things are coming out is slowing down, so I am comfortable there won't be too many other themes

Kerry: the themes make sense to me

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Berlin

<SimonCox> Jeremy's brain is disorganized in prose, but awesome in pictures!

phila: some of the use cases at the bottom of the document make references to the earlier ones, which might make it easier for you, jeremy

<phila> Berlin Workshop

phila: I am organizing a workshop in Berlin
... location as discussed by kerry is a use case, how do I authoritatively refer to a location in my dataset
... the group members that are close should consider to participate
... EU project Share PSI is organising it
... hosted by Fraunhofer

Josh: Happy to see that the first theme is linking
... it is important to have clear semantics of the entity that is linked to
... directionality is important in use cases, having links to go to the data this data is derived from is valuable for findability
... who is using the data should be a part of the theme

jtandy: backlinks are equally important, put it under enabling discoverability
... we need to think hard how we can enable these backlinks in our best practise document
... we may need to create our own examples for that

Kerry: could not see the backlinks coming up in any use case
... if it is important we should have a use case

jtandy: e.g. I arrive in a new place, what is available near me?

Kerry: maybe not the best use case, but we can find one

Linda: developed a testbed
... would like to share it with the group
... to get feedback

<jtandy> +1 from me to Linda's offer to share ideas about test-beds

Linda: expect it to be ready end of this week or next

Kerry: rather put it on the wiki

<SimonCox> Chipmunk Chris again


<SimonCox> Almost as funny as the cricket

<joshlieberman> Take those acorns out of your mouth!

<kerry> chris, can you type on the irc?

<ChrisLittle> give up on audio suggest that use case is critical data sent out, need to update who did we send to?

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask what we mean with linkable geometries

<billroberts> +1 to separating feature and geometry

Andrea: wondered whether make links more explicit, big geometries that are attached to data may require that

jtandy: I will put this one up on the wiki
... treat geometries as first class citizens

<Zakim> billroberts, you wanted to talk about a use case for backlinks

Bill: if geometries are only defined as part of features, other people can not reference the geometry. Geometries with URIs gives them equality

<AndreaPerego> An example from Ian Davis Placetime.com (back in 2003): http://vocab.org/placetime/geopoint/wgs84/X-126.817Y46.183

<ChrisLittle> get Bill to write that down

yes please

<phila> NeoGeo

phila: neogeo does exactly that according to my understanding, geometry as a first class citizen


<phila> CEO-LD project

phila: small project, between UK and China
... W3C and Codata
... experts in satellite and earth observation data come together to enable this group to write the coverage deliverable
... offering to help, but not taking over this deliverable
... our SDW group still has the authority, the ceo-ld group is only there to help

<ChrisLittle> CEO may cause confusion: international Committee for Earth Observations

jtandy: will be on holiday for the next meeting

Kerry: reminder to register for TPAC

<phila> TPAC page

<AndreaPerego> Won't be able to come.

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_Sapporo_F2F

Kerry: tell us on this page if you are coming

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

<SimonCox> FWIW - Australia 99/7, Rogers 50 n.o. - rain stops play

andrea: use cases missing?

Kerry: the github version is still developing, but the other document was frozen about 3 weeks ago

<phila> It was frozen following the WG resolution in early June, modulo the editors adding in links to the open issues (which was the resolution). I expect a new version to be published simultaneously with the FPWD of the BP doc

Kerry: the use case documents will be a working document up until the end of this working group potentially

<Alejandro_Llaves> https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/88

Alejandro: Simon wrote down that there were some interesting comments in the geojson mailing list

<joshlieberman> --with a grain of salt--

Kerry: if the comments are not submitted yet to our public comment list, we should suggest to them to do so

Simon: will do that

<ChrisLittle> bye

<joshlieberman> bye

<BartvanLeeuwen> bye

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

<jtandy> bye

<Linda> bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye


<MattPerry> bye

<billroberts> bye