Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<eparsons> Chair: eparsons

<BartvanLeeuwen> presen+ BartvanLeeuwen

trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2016

<BartvanLeeuwen> -1

<phila> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Teleconference_Agendas_and_minutes

<scribe> scribe: Kerry

<scribe> scribenick: Kerry

scribe+ kerry

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<phila> Last meeting's minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes

<jtandy> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> What is the Webex password please?

<Payam> +1

<ClemensPortele> +0 (wasn't there)

<eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

<ChrisLittle> +1 minute but not there

<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

RESOLUTION: appove last weeks minutes http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes

<robin> +0

ED: robin requested to intro
... no answer from robin

<robin> Hi, I am a student from University of Calgary

Robin: PhD student from U Calgary
... works with Steve Liang of sesnor things API

eparsons: welcome

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

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

eparsons: no comments wrt patent call

<eparsons> Topic : Best Practice - Progress to date

best practice deliverable

jtandy: I will do most of discussion, payam pls jump in
... linda is holidaying in the sun

<ChrisLittle> +1 phila

jtandy: .... question to phila re new style change
... almost signed off, easy change for a Note, just a respec tweak

phila: yes, starts from 1 feb
... cannot use before then

jtandy: so it will have a sidebar with ToC, but we will beat the new style adn will use the existing style for our fpwd

phila: asking Scott about 3 week ucr process that took 8 days second time -- for this new fpwd will it be 1 week or 3?

ssimmons: 3 weeks review plus 8 day vote

phila: so will be feb

jtandy: questions the 3 weeks

ssimmons: if only for review can skip the 3 weeks wait, could be zero wait -- you can approve now

<ChrisLittle> +1 to release doc for public review

jtandy: this is a stable snapshot of unfinished work so does not need a TC vote

ssimmons: confirmed
... this gropu can approve it. it only needs to go to geosemantics group in final release

jtandy: our plan was to provide stable snapshot today and vote in meeting next week -- but that vote may be subject to changes being made

phila: yes, depending on content -- the tues or thurs after the next meeting is ok with review over next 7 days

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

phila: that means tuesday 19 Jan for publication, all being straightforward

jtandy: BP doc review -- I will cover from the top in summary
... please mail changes to public mail list this week

<phila> chair: eparsons

jtandy: for direct text changes that you provide we will apply them

<phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160106

jtandy: for something without the text we will record an issue but not make the change
... for difficult things that are drastically wrong and you could not support in vote please attend call and discuss next week

phila: this is important --- in another group we had some approval subject to changes but we ended up with public doc with a no vote against it
... please ensure that you are indeed happy before we publish as we want to get this right

<phila> The Current Ed Draft of the BP doc

jtandy: abstract is a short para for press release that will bring people to see it
... next is status of doc trying to resolve a number of things raised in last meeting ... focus on concerns raised in last meeting, evidence needed

eparsons: i think t his is what we needed -- perhaps should go in press release too

jtandy: eparsons can write the press release to do this!
... ... at the bottom of intro is issue-81 (reads out)

frans: Q about intro: what is the reltionship between this doc and the charter deliverable for best practice? restful API and spatial ontology?

<frans> BP deliverable in the charter: http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#bp

jtandy: i picked out charter things to include in abstract as here (sumarises abstract)
... are you saying there are BP deliverables from charter that are not in this note?

frans: yes
... (reads from charter) ... an ontology is not a document -- what do we do with this?

<KJanowicz> I agree with Ed

eparsons: we have not got to finding we need this yet

jtandy: we plan at this point to review whate there is and to say what to use and when, we may not need to make a new one

<SimonCox> +1 franz!

frans: there is a need for harmonisation of existing standards we need to do this

<KJanowicz> IMHO, there is a need for such an ontology

<KJanowicz> (and related ontologies)

jtandy: frans please write down a note for this and I will include a comment in our intro about this -- that we might make something new but our first attempt is to review an recommend existing

frans: also needd for API deliverable

<Payam> +q

jtandy: I beleive we are offering advice on APIs and not defining one -- this looks the right approach

frans: agrees that APi may not be neccessary but we need to leave this option open where requirements are not met by existing solutions

Payam: part of what Frans is looking for may arise from examples as we get to those

eparsons: agrees , also a broader point is that we will identify gaps we may not be able to fill but just identify these due to lack of resources

SimonCox: exercise becomes a meta-exercies if e do not address the gaps

eparsons: points out that we do have limited time -- we need to be realistic

jtandy: in some places we have expert opinions amongst us and we can answer those gaps. e.g. issue-81
... simon says just cataloguing is insufficient

SimonCox: a list of gaps is not a useful list of best practices

jtandy: we might have to identify what is needed that we cannot do

eparsons: best practice must be practice -- if we see a gap our solution we design in a short time is not best practice

<phila> W3C doesn't have a definition of Best Practice - WGs are sovereign!

ClemensPortele: both views are valid --- one option could be to create a new document type or additional deliverables to close the gaps?

jtandy: acking Phil's comment , it is what we want to make it. we can make additional deliverables as we see fit but resourcing is an issue

<frans> an agreed spatial ontology conformant to the ISO 19107 abstract model and based on existing available ontologies such as GeoSPARQL, NeoGeo and the ISA Core Location vocabulary

jtandy: lets see how this goes as we identify the gaps

frans: charter says based on existing ontologies -- suggesting it does not exist yet

jtandy: too much choice at moment -- do we really need another choice?

+q

<KJanowicz> (and there are also cases where we have not suitable vocabulary/ontology)

<phila> LGD Report conclusion

phila: this arose from the workshop in the final panel session, stuart williams said "where do i pour the concrete"

<KJanowicz> +q

phila: so charter says we have all these things already but what is someone to do? workshop said do we pick one and forget all the rest or advise what is needed in the right situation, or should we just change something existing a bit?

<frans> I like the option of picking the best ontology and try to improve it

phila: charter aims to not predefine the decision of the working group about how to deal with this
... you can do, if you choose, a comply or explain model -- it really is this group's decision how we solve this.

frans: I like the 3rd option, not developing and not picking but improving the best one a little

<KJanowicz> IMHO, we should work on the interface level and there is actually tons of work left to be done there

<phila> In case anyone hasn't seen it... http://xkcd.com/927/

frans: we could empower other working groups to help us

kerry: our use cases to identify some missing things and we may need a core vocab

<frans> Yes. A simple core ontology that is extensible would be a great achievement

KJanowicz: e.g moving objects and trajectories is a common task that has specific requirements... types of measurements is another one.. common guidance at least could be provided

ChrisLittle: Being blunt, we should not be scared to point to bad practices such as using WGS84 for highly precise locations

<KJanowicz> IMHO, our work should be about finding and defining the common cores underlying the solutions that exist out there and enabling these common core vocabularies to become the minimal interoperability layer used to translate between the more application oriented vocabularies.

phila: Denise or Bart has mentioned that if we advise geosparql 1.1 then we will.

<KJanowicz> agreed, but this is about striking the right balance

phila: iso core location vocab aimed to identify hight level core stuff but it turns out not to be useful on its own and then you start developing application profiles vey fast
... to make interoperability to practically work you really need someone to tell you what to do -- this is a difficult balance between theory and practice

<ssimmons> +1

eparsons: this doc should be aimed at practitioners

<KJanowicz> Agreed but somebody needs to explain what ways are out there to deal, for instance, with measurement types, what the pros&cons of these approaches are, and which one should be used if you need guidance.

jtandy: i will update intro and some other section about helping people choose the right one and make a new one if we need to
... now talking about how we deal with issues
... e.g see the issue box -- not the order in doc is order of creationg in github

<jtandy> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/81

jtandy: to repond to issues please click on link in doc and leave your comments there in github

please work on issues this way -- is that ok?

frans: are github acounts needed?

jtandy... comments are public, but you need to be signed in

<eparsons> +1 to issue managment

scribe: this is good for eds to track issues using github
... now issue-79 about sdis

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary

scribe: sections on audience, scope, best practices template, summary with all bps listd
... summary is auto-generated
... top level sections after that should be no surprise -- there are 30

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api

scribe: please discuss this section now
... may not need resolution prior to fpwd?
... but how much of this is about spatial data in particular? is this in the right place or does it belong in a broader document than ours?
... will sek to merge those tables as we go on, also ross ref requirements, also appendix b, incomplete glossary, set of references,
... pls provide feedback on mailing list ideally resolved before next week -- anything outstanding to be discussed in meting next week.

<phila> W3C Draft = OGC draft Discussion Paper

scribe: not not finished -- only FPWD

Payam: all covered

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#Amsterdam

eparsons: reminder for f2f only a month away hosted by geonovum

+q

<BartvanLeeuwen> bye

scribe: please read the doc and make your comments well before next meeting

<frans> Bye, have a great year

<ChrisLittle> bye and thanks

<KJanowicz> bye

scribe: and come to meeting to vote!!!!!

<ClemensPortele> thanks - bye!

<MattPerry> bye

<eparsons> bye