19:42:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
19:42:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-irc
19:42:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:42:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
19:42:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:42:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
19:42:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:42:08 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
19:42:28 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:48:11 <phila> phila has joined #sdw
19:49:04 <phila> trackbot, start meeting
19:49:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:49:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:49:08 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
19:49:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:49:09 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
19:50:14 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20151202
19:50:17 <phila> Chair: Ed
19:50:53 <phila> Regrets: Payam, Simon, Scott, Alejandro, Bill, Rachel
19:53:44 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
19:57:07 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
19:59:08 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
19:59:21 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
19:59:51 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele has joined #sdw
20:00:41 <ClemensPortele> present+ ClemensPortele
20:00:52 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
20:00:58 <eparsons> present +eparsons
20:01:03 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
20:02:18 <phila> present+ phila
20:02:20 <KJanowicz> KJanowicz has joined #sdw
20:02:28 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
20:02:41 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
20:02:58 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
20:04:06 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdw
20:04:26 <Linda> present+ Linda
20:04:41 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
20:04:49 <eparsons> scribe : phil
20:04:56 <phila_> phila_ has joined #sdw
20:05:00 <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:06 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
20:05:07 <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/11/25-sdw-minutes
20:05:08 <phila_> Topic: Last week's minutes
20:05:14 <jtandy> +1
20:05:15 <phila_> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
20:05:16 <ClemensPortele> +1
20:05:23 <Linda> +1
20:05:27 <phila_> phila: 0 Not present
20:05:27 <ahaller2> +1
20:05:34 <phila_> +1
20:05:37 <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:45 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:05:46 <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
20:05:53 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:06:00 <phila_> Resolution : Approve last week's minutes
20:06:28 <eparsons> Topic : BP Editors Update
20:06:55 <phila_> jtandy: Payam, Linda and I got together last week and spent 8 hours working through stuff
20:07:18 <phila_> ... key point was that we reached consensus of what we wanted to cover.Each came up with a similar set of BPs that we want to cover
20:07:29 <phila_> jtandy: Want to thank Payam for hosting us at Uni Surrey
20:07:38 <jtandy> file:///Users/jeremy/Workspace/sdw/bp/index.html
20:07:52 <jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
20:07:53 <phila_> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
20:08:27 <phila_> jtandy: I'll work through some of the main parts. We've added to the intro and scope
20:08:47 <Kery> Kery has joined #sdw
20:08:56 <phila_> ... We're still in the process of putting our notes into the doc. Some sections are in yellow which indicates that it's a work in progress
20:09:09 <phila_> ... Yellow is really a note to the editors that we need to do more
20:09:16 <jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
20:09:16 <eparsons> q?
20:09:18 <phila_> ... If we go to the BPO Summary
20:09:24 <phila_> s/BPO/BP/
20:09:43 <phila_> jtandy: In the BP summary, you'll see that we have 31 BPs
20:10:07 <phila_> ... in the main body of the doc is do adopt... each BP follows the template that was put in place for DWBP
20:10:15 <phila_> ... So you'll see the description
20:10:17 <KJanowicz> KJanowicz has joined #sdw
20:10:28 <phila> jtandy: Evidence, how to test etc.
20:10:29 <phila> q+
20:11:08 <phila> jtandy: One of the sections I'll mention now... we've included a cross reference to the requirements in the UCR doc. Comments welcome of courser
20:11:11 <eparsons> ack next
20:12:37 <phila> phila: Highlights the RFC 2119 keyword issue
20:12:45 <phila> jtandy: I don't think we need those keywords
20:13:03 <eparsons> phila: notes that dwbp have changed template for BP's
20:13:06 <phila> ... When we got together we looked at their benefit clusters, it didn't look like a natural fit for our work.
20:13:41 <phila> ... We feel we want to show that we're a specialisation and don't think we need to follow that
20:14:09 <phila> eparsons: I like the structure you're using
20:14:26 <phila> ... As long as we get a narrative going as well, I'm happy. Usability from a dev POV is important
20:14:44 <phila> jtandy: One of the things we di on friday was to try and order the sections, prioritising what we think people will want to know forst.
20:15:01 <phila> ... So let's talk about that order.
20:15:05 <phila> ... First - identifiers
20:15:18 <eparsons> +1
20:15:20 <phila> ... that's fundamentally different to the way SDIs work
20:16:02 <phila> jtandy: Next up - we thoughgt the next thing that people would expect to hear was how to express your spatial data. So there's a section on how to describe your geospatial things
20:16:33 <phila> ... We had a long chat at TPAC and we said that all the stuff that describes the non-spatial stuff is out of our scope, which leaves the spatial relationship stuff
20:16:42 <jtandy> q?
20:16:48 <phila> jtandy: Next thing is how to decribe temporal data
20:17:19 <phila> ... What we decided was that we probably don't need a specific section on temporal data in our doc, what we do have is sections where our BPs give examples of how to use temporal data
20:17:29 <phila> ... Most of the time related stuff will be in the time deluverable
20:17:40 <phila> ... Then we have a little section on sensor data.
20:17:53 <phila> ... Following that we move to the linking section and enabling discovery.
20:18:08 <phila> ... Then exposing through APIs
20:18:15 <phila> ... The handling large data.
20:18:41 <phila> ... but note that earlier sections talk about accessing larger data sets through APIs etc. And that's how we can talk about coverages.
20:18:56 <jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#requirements
20:19:00 <phila> jtandy: When we went through the UCR against the BPs that we've defined, a lot weren't listed as things for the BP doc
20:19:25 <phila> ... We've done the cross references there. Even where sometehing wasn't a BP deliverable, we've included it where we think it's relevant.
20:19:48 <phila> jtandy: The list of the BPs themselves is the heart of it.
20:20:00 <jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary
20:20:23 <phila> jtandy: First BP is Use globally unique identifiers for entity-level resources
20:20:36 <KJanowicz> I would propose so
20:20:40 <phila> jtandy: So question - do we want to 'force'people to use HTTP URIs?
20:20:41 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to http
20:20:46 <KJanowicz> +1 for http
20:20:53 <Kerry> Kerry has joined #sdw
20:20:55 <Linda> +1 to http
20:20:57 <ClemensPortele> +1 for http(s)
20:20:57 <KJanowicz> exactly
20:20:57 <phila> eparsons: I'd say HTTP, that's what we're talking about
20:21:02 <phila> q+
20:21:05 <MattPerry> +1 for http
20:21:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
20:21:12 <ahaller2> +1 for http
20:21:12 <eparsons> ack next
20:21:21 <Kerry> Present+ kerry
20:21:33 <KJanowicz> well for LD http and https will be the same
20:21:38 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:21:44 <DanhLePhuoc> q+
20:21:47 <KJanowicz> q+
20:22:46 <Kerry> Q+
20:22:48 <phila> phila: Raises issue of HTTPS
20:23:08 <phila> action: archer to propose some wording around HTTPS cf HTTP
20:23:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Propose some wording around https cf http [on Phil Archer - due 2015-12-09].
20:23:15 <eparsons> ack next
20:23:20 <Kerry> Q-
20:23:41 <phila> BartvanLeeuwen: If we aren't going to recommend using HTTP, then we should change the name of the group.
20:24:16 <eparsons> ack next
20:24:19 <jtandy> q?
20:24:22 <phila> jtandy: The W3C rec is that you MUST use gloablly unique identifiers, then that you SHOULD use HTTP
20:24:49 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: In spatial data, we're also talking about sensors and IoT, they don't use HTTP necessarily.
20:24:54 <phila> ... So are we limiting ourselves?
20:25:29 <phila> jtandy: I think when we're talking about identifiers, we're saying that they should use those IDs, but not necessarily say that they must always be in a resolvable situation.
20:25:48 <phila> DanhLePhuoc: In some smaller devices, they might use other unique IDs, without binding to any protocol.#
20:25:53 <phila> jtandy: Like DOIs
20:26:17 <KJanowicz> there are URIs for DOIs
20:26:52 <eparsons> q?
20:26:53 <jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to add issue to Best Practice 1 regarding use of HTTP URI or just globally unique identifier
20:27:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Add issue to best practice 1 regarding use of http uri or just globally unique identifier [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-12-09].
20:27:16 <phila> issue: Use of HTTP URIs or just globally unique identifiers
20:27:16 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-35 - Use of http uris or just globally unique identifiers.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/35/edit>.
20:27:21 <ClemensPortele> In which sense is a sensor "on the web", if it does not use http(s)?
20:27:22 <eparsons> ack next
20:27:34 <phila> close action-108
20:27:34 <trackbot> Closed action-108.
20:28:07 <AndreaPerego> +1 to Clemens. If we are talking about spatial data *on the Web*, then we're talking about HTTP(S)
20:28:11 <phila> KJanowicz: Everything I wanted to say is that the SemWeb community is well aware of the HTTP/S issue. I think it's important for us to stay in the LD paradigm and say that we shoujld use HTTPS? URIs
20:28:25 <KJanowicz> q-
20:28:40 <phila> action: Janowicw to sned us the info on HTTPS? in SemWeb community
20:28:40 <trackbot> Error finding 'Janowicw'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:28:53 <phila> action: Janowicwz to sned us the info on HTTPS? in SemWeb community
20:28:53 <trackbot> Error finding 'Janowicwz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:29:09 <phila> action: kryzstzof to sned us the info on HTTPS? in SemWeb community
20:29:09 <trackbot> Error finding 'kryzstzof'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.
20:29:16 <jtandy> q?
20:29:35 <phila> action: Janowicz to sned us the info on HTTPS? in SemWeb community
20:29:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Sned us the info on https? in semweb community [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2015-12-09].
20:29:48 <phila> jtandy: Works through more of the BPs
20:30:18 <phila> ... Got as far as the BP on locally unique IDs. We want to provide guidance on how they can mint their own URIs based on those things.
20:30:35 <phila> ... We want to talk about situations where there is no ID, just the inference that something exists
20:31:06 <phila> ... In schema.org you can talk about a hotel without actually naming it. A bit like a blank node, but not, we need to give guidance on minting URIs
20:31:18 <phila> jtandy: BP4 is to give advice on stable IDs for things that change iver time
20:31:33 <AndreaPerego> s/iver time/over time/
20:31:38 <phila> ... Things change over time and space. Need to give guidance so we don't end up woth a bunch of broken links.
20:31:49 <phila> jtandy: BP5 is on providing IDs for parts of larger datasets
20:31:53 <AndreaPerego> s/woth/with/
20:32:18 <phila> jtandy: There will be a lot more notes going into this over the coming week.
20:32:28 <phila> jtandy: Next on the list is expressing spatial data, section 7.2
20:32:45 <phila> ... The big green section is based on action-101 from Bill, Janowicz, Clemens etc.
20:32:58 <phila> ... I don't think the list is going to appear directly in our doc
20:32:58 <eparsons> q?
20:33:57 <phila> jtandy: We're going to want to give people a methodology for choosing the vocab that they want to use
20:34:12 <phila> eparsons: Would we say it's OK to publish data without an explicit vocabulary
20:34:25 <KJanowicz> -1 I would not consider that good practice
20:34:38 <phila> ... So you've provided stable URIs but there's no vocab as such
20:34:44 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #sdw
20:34:51 <phila> jtandy: So there are either no semantics or it's a local vocab only.
20:34:52 <KJanowicz> q+
20:35:00 <eparsons> sck next
20:35:01 <LarsG> present+ LarsG
20:35:04 <eparsons> ack next
20:35:06 <phila> ... A local vocab is OK as a last resort but it's better to use an existing vocab.
20:35:25 <ClemensPortele> q+
20:35:35 <phila> KJanowicz: One of the things about RDF is that the data and metadata come together. You always have some describing vocab
20:35:42 <eparsons> ack next
20:36:20 <ahaller2> +1 for always recommending a vocabulary, regardless if your's or a commonly used one
20:36:24 <phila> ClemensPortele: I just want to point out that if we stick to that (using existiung vocabs) then we'reruling out ShapeFiles, GeoJSON etc.
20:36:44 <KJanowicz> but there are converters from shapefiles to RDF
20:36:45 <phila> ClemensPortele: I recognise the value in having a vocab but if we stick with that then we're going down a very RDF-only route
20:36:48 <eparsons> +1 to ClemensPortele
20:37:03 <phila> jtandy: Some folks will have tool chains based around GML.
20:37:04 <KJanowicz> and in some cases just using a shapefile is fine (not everything has to be Linked Data)
20:37:34 <phila> ... One thing we've talked about is a grid that shows which BPs are supported by each of the main formats
20:37:46 <KJanowicz> +1
20:37:57 <phila> ... We can say it's a BP to say what your vocab is, but we should recognise that some encoding or format choices won't support it.
20:38:15 <phila> ClemensPortele: It's also the wording 'Best practice' - some are 'Good practices'
20:38:32 <phila> ... The format list I made for last week... you need to specify some details
20:38:44 <phila> ... sometimes it's easier just to create a bit of GeoJSON
20:38:54 <phila> ... And sometimes its justified to make less efefort
20:38:58 <eparsons> q+
20:39:09 <phila> ... I think there is case for a range of approaches
20:39:09 <AndreaPerego> s/efefort/effort/
20:39:35 <eparsons> ack next
20:39:37 <phila> jtandy: I agree. One of the advantages of having such a big WG is that we can be sensitive to those issues - please keep us on track.
20:40:28 <phila> eparsons: I was just going to reaffirm what Clemens said. WE should necessarily jump to 5 stars which would require an open well recognised RDF vocab, but the pragmatic solutions include just getting the unique IDs with data in whatever encoding it is
20:40:48 <phila> ... I think we have to recognise that there are graduations of BP
20:40:56 <phila> q+
20:41:20 <phila> jtandy: A request to Linda - can we put something like that in the scope or the intro?
20:41:33 <KJanowicz> agreed, but a best practice document should explain what to do in an ideal case. Of course, reaching these solutions is not always possible for multiple reasons.
20:41:40 <phila> Linda: I'm sure that we can come up with something that links the BPs in that way
20:41:51 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:41:53 <eparsons> ack next
20:42:52 <jtandy> phila: graduations of best practices are what lead to DWBP benefits and sharePSI maturity model
20:43:15 <jtandy> ... some sort of clustering (e.g. DWBP benefits or maturity model) will be useful
20:43:23 <jtandy> ... everyone does "this"
20:43:37 <jtandy> ... but to do "that" takes a bit more effort
20:43:42 <eparsons> ack next
20:43:53 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:43:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
20:44:00 <phila> AndreaPerego: Just a comment on the discussion about vocabs, HTTP etc.
20:44:20 <phila> ... I was thinking - sometimes we tahink about a stepwise approach. First data on the Web, then more enhanced
20:44:34 <phila> ... The first step is HTTP URIs, then those with conng
20:44:59 <phila> ... We have different formats that can be used for some things and not others. If you have a format you want to use, OK.
20:45:04 <phila> ... There is anotion of profile
20:45:40 <ClemensPortele> s/anotion/a notion/
20:45:49 <phila> ... Depending on what I want to do, if you think about CSWs, you already can get the info in DC or ISO19115
20:46:22 <phila> jtandy: To play back the key point, there some things that everyone should do, then you gradually get more sophisticated
20:46:31 <jtandy> q?
20:47:20 <phila> jtandy: I'll rattle through exrfessing spatial data. Minimum expressivity - you want to give people a type, a label, multi-lingual content if your're in that kind of environment, a ref point to put it on a map
20:47:40 <phila> ... ANd then in the examples we'll show lots of ways of doing it.
20:48:07 <KJanowicz> Agreed
20:48:28 <KJanowicz> q+
20:48:44 <phila> phila: rambles about giving people too much choice and not enough guidance
20:48:52 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:48:55 <Linda> +1 to phila
20:49:11 <KJanowicz> +1
20:49:20 <eparsons> ack next
20:49:22 <phila> jtandy: We can give guidance on giving a label, going on to toponyms, and more, you might write that in a differnet way.
20:49:44 <eparsons> q+
20:49:55 <phila> KJanowicz: I agree with what was said before - people turn to BP documents because there's too much choice. If we make too many things optional with different alternatives
20:50:18 <AndreaPerego> s/differnet/different/
20:50:36 <phila> ... We need to maek sure that the SSN can handle non-HTTP URIs if we don't insist on that, for example - we shouoldn't make a rod for our own backs (scribe paraphrase)
20:50:40 <jtandy> ack eparsons
20:50:44 <AndreaPerego> s/maek/make/
20:51:13 <phila> eparsons: What people are saying is right - this doc needs to give advice - but we have to remember that this is a BP doc so we need to be able to identify where BPs actyally exist and are being followed.
20:51:23 <phila> eparsons: We need a real world example for all our BPs
20:51:41 <KJanowicz> Agreed
20:51:49 <phila> ... I think it's going to be hard to publish even a draft without at last some real world examples in there to show we mean business.
20:52:04 <phila> jtandy: You know when you're climbing a hill and you get to a false summit...
20:52:14 <phila> eparsons: We need to prove that it's not just us.
20:52:37 <eparsons> q?
20:52:37 <phila> jtandy: BP7 - how to descrtibe geometry.
20:52:51 <LarsG> s/descrtibe/describe/
20:53:04 <phila> ... Lots of meat involved, hop to determine the geometry from point to volume geometries
20:53:27 <phila> ... How do you handle the case where geometries are 95% of your data, might want to point to things
20:53:34 <phila> ... Bounding boxes, CRSs etc.
20:53:57 <phila> jtandy: BP8 - Tried to resolve the long running conversation about CRSs
20:54:16 <eparsons> q+
20:54:34 <phila> ... There's a BP that says if you're working on a high-precision application then WGS84 probably won't be good enough
20:54:40 <phila> ... and you need to use something better
20:55:22 <phila> eparsons: I agree, but I'm cioncerned about the terminology. It's not just about precision. WGS84 with enough decimal points works, but some user communities have reqs that are not met by the geoid that WGS84 uses
20:55:41 <phila> jtandy: Aus is moving 7 cm/year which doesn't help. Geographers please help
20:55:43 <AndreaPerego> s/cioncerned/concerned/
20:55:57 <phila> eparsons: It's so unusual for anyone to pray to a geographer I'm enjoying it...
20:56:18 <phila> jtandy: How to describe relative positions. It's not in the reqs but we know people want to know it - it might fall off our list.
20:56:27 <phila> jtandy: BP10 describes positional inaccuracies
20:56:34 <phila> ... etc.
20:56:55 <phila> jtandy: ANd finally in that section, BP11 ia about properties that change over time which is hard, so BP is going to be helpful
20:57:16 <AndreaPerego> s/ia about/is about/
20:57:38 <phila> jtandy: Over the next few days, Linda and I will be putting as much unstructured text into the doc and then we'll try and structure the text as we go.
20:57:49 <phila> ... Hoping to have enough structure to vote next week.
20:57:59 <phila> eparsons: Thanks for all the work you've done in the f2f meeting, much appreciated.
20:58:01 <Linda> q+
20:58:11 <phila> ack L
20:58:16 <eparsons> ack next
20:58:32 <phila> Linda: I was wondering in what state should the doc be for the WG to accept it for publishing?
20:59:50 <jtandy> phila: FPWD? provide enough information to determine whether the document will be useful
21:00:09 <jtandy> ... something that someone can look at to see where we are going ...
21:01:02 <jtandy> ... regarding timelines; we like to have a week for members to read before voting
21:01:16 <jtandy> ... give people time to consider
21:01:26 <jtandy> ... we need to be realistic on timescales
21:01:36 <jtandy> ... before xmas is good; but ...
21:02:06 <phila> Topic: Christmas is coming
21:02:22 <phila> eparsons: We have the potnetial for a call on 30 Dec
21:02:36 <phila> So we meet on 23 Dec but not 30
21:02:41 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
21:02:52 <KJanowicz> will miss 23rd and 30st
21:03:02 <AndreaPerego> Me too, I'm afraid.
21:03:03 <ahaller2> will miss the 23rd
21:03:04 <jtandy> agree with KJanowicz
21:03:16 <LarsG> I'll miss the 23rd and the 30th as well
21:03:27 <phila> phila: I'd be inclined to stop on 16th
21:03:31 <KJanowicz> +1
21:03:36 <ClemensPortele> +1
21:03:37 <phila> eparsons: OK, done deal. We stop after 16th
21:03:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> thx by
21:03:40 <jtandy> +1
21:03:44 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye
21:03:45 <ClemensPortele> thanks!
21:03:46 <LarsG> cheers
21:03:50 <phila> eparsons: recommence on 6 Jan 2016
21:03:53 <ahaller2> bye
21:04:09 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:04:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-sdw-minutes.html phila
21:08:47 <phila_> phila_ has joined #sdw
23:26:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw