07:51:49 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 07:51:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/08-sdw-irc 07:51:51 RRSAgent, make logs world 07:51:51 Zakim has joined #sdw 07:51:53 Zakim, this will be SDW 07:51:53 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 07:51:54 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 07:51:54 Date: 08 February 2016 07:52:21 rrsagent, make logs public 07:52:52 meeting: SDW F2F Day 1 07:53:02 chair: Ed 08:03:41 Linda has joined #sdw 08:03:42 kerry has joined #sdw 08:03:51 present+ kerry 08:03:53 Hi Kerry Ed is not here yet 08:03:59 present+ Linda 08:04:09 Hi linda! 08:04:18 I have not managed to get in on webex yet eiter 08:04:59 Phil is not here yet either. So I suppose we wait a little... 08:05:53 ed just sent an email -- maybe 10? 08:05:59 also bill roberts said 10 08:07:05 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw 08:07:07 hi all. Text messages and emails flying around suggest Ed, Bill and I will arrive at Amersfoort station in one hour's time. I just pulled out of Rotterdam Centraal. 08:07:22 phil had said he would be late -- a few days ago -- maybe 11? 08:07:35 morning everyone 08:08:46 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 08:14:35 hi kerry 08:14:41 hi bart! 08:15:01 LarsG has joined #sdw 08:15:05 do you have webex in the room? 08:15:11 not yet 08:15:14 we are working onthat.... 08:15:26 jtandy has joined #sdw 08:15:38 present+ jtandy 08:15:46 present+ LarsG 08:15:48 ok -- ta. It looks a bit like it might need phil to me 08:17:40 present+ AndreaPerego 08:18:17 kerry: but I'm not able to dail.. 08:18:45 as in , I can' start a audio connection 08:20:27 ok, can't you 'take' over the meeting and become host ? 08:22:13 frans has joined #sdw 08:23:37 kerry: do you have skype credits ? 08:25:05 okay 08:26:13 can you call long distance on someone elses expense ? 08:26:32 whats your number ? 08:27:37 for now yes 08:27:44 hmmm 08:28:45 that is us 08:28:47 +31 number 08:38:20 kerry: we will do that 08:38:30 you didn't receive a call ? 08:38:45 ok, who can chair please? 08:38:56 aharth has joined #sdw 08:39:00 kerry: linda is chairing 08:39:02 present+ aharth 08:39:06 I will start with the UCR topic 08:39:27 +61 2 409788412 (maybe fogot to drop the zero) 08:39:36 scribenick: jtandy 08:39:42 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 08:39:42 +61 409788412 08:39:44 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 08:39:45 scribe: Jeremy Tandy 08:39:56 trackbot, start meeting 08:39:58 topic: UCR document 08:39:58 RRSAgent, make logs world 08:40:00 Zakim, this will be SDW 08:40:00 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 08:40:01 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 08:40:01 Date: 08 February 2016 08:40:02 present+ AndreaPerego 08:40:03 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 08:40:58 [we finally get some audio working on the teleconference] 08:41:15 present+ kerry 08:42:14 scribe: jtandy 08:42:18 chair: kerry 08:42:23 present+ ChrisLittle 08:42:23 scribenick: jtandy 08:42:25 scribenick jtandy 08:42:27 present+ jtandy 08:42:29 present+ Linda 08:42:38 topic: UCR document 08:42:56 topic: approve the minutes (of last f2f) 08:43:11 kerry: did we approve the minutes of the last f2f? 08:43:15 [looking] 08:43:48 https://www.w3.org/2015/10/25-sdw-minutes 08:43:56 jtandy: query- the minutes from sapporo 08:44:03 kerry: yes- 2-days 08:44:26 propose: approve sapporo f2f minutes 08:44:44 +1 08:44:45 +1 08:44:49 day two: https://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-sdw-minutes 08:44:53 +1 08:44:54 +1 08:44:56 +1 08:45:19 +1 (I was not there, but I trust you) 08:45:37 resolved: approve sapporo f2f minutes 08:45:55 +0 not there 08:46:01 topic: patent call 08:46:03 https://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-sdw-minutes 08:46:28 roblemmens has joined #sdw 08:46:38 propose: approve sapporo f2f minutes day 2 08:46:41 +1 08:46:57 +1 08:46:59 +1 08:47:02 +1 08:47:06 +1 (I was not there, but I trust you) 08:47:07 resolved: approve sapporo f2f minutes day 2 08:47:10 +1 08:47:25 Stanislav has joined #sdw 08:48:07 kerry: BIG thankyou to Linda and Geonovum for hosting the F2F ... 08:48:15 kerry: does the patent call 08:48:29 You're very welcome! Nice having you all here. 08:48:42 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 08:49:21 kerry: reminds people that this follows both W3C and OGC process; particularly for OGC, please declare patent interests ... 08:49:30 ... let me know of anything 08:49:33 q+ 08:49:40 ack linda 08:49:54 Linda: we have two new people in the group today; Rob and Stan ... 08:49:57 rachel has joined #sdw 08:49:59 ... from OGC 08:50:45 jtandy: asks Rob and Stan to type their intro into the IRC after they do their verbal intro 08:50:57 present+ rachel 08:50:57 topic: new participants 08:52:03 Intro Rob Lemmens 08:52:12 frans: says great to have you with us ... hopefully you can provide real examples 08:53:16 kerry: [Rob and Stan] are already OGC members ... welcom 08:53:24 s/welcom/welcome/ 08:53:42 kerry: gives some IRC advice to the newcomers 08:53:53 We're ITC, Univ Twente, working on visual linked geodata explorer and VGI ontology 08:53:55 kerry: to the agenda ... https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_F2F3 08:54:11 topic: UCR -- steps to ensure that the remaining issues will not stay open indefinitely 08:54:24 kerry: invites frans to lead ... 08:55:02 frans: lists the open actions on the screen https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/open 08:55:18 frans: there's [quite a large number] 08:55:41 ... there has been discussion on the email list, so that probably means these aren't trivial to resolve 08:55:55 ... but we need to finish the requirements before we get on with the work 08:56:06 ... otherwise things are being done backward 08:56:19 ... it's good to take a look at these issues again now 08:56:30 q+ 08:56:31 ... we actions in the tracker to get things done 08:57:21 frans: we assigned actions for the deliverables to particular people 08:57:30 ... we can't allocate to multiple people 08:58:02 kerry: suggests that we operate in a bit of an agile fashion ... 08:58:19 ... leave some requirements open whilst we don't have resources to work on them 08:58:40 ... also, the timeline shows we have plenty of time for the UCR 08:58:56 ... we don't need to resolve all issues up front 08:59:23 frans: I got the impression that some of these issues are not resolved because they're difficult 08:59:30 ... not because we're not working on them yet 08:59:43 ... difficult does not mean important 09:00:06 kerry: fair enough - seems reasonable to review these actions [periodically] 09:00:26 ... but they don't have to be resolved where we are not actively working on the deliverables 09:01:01 frans: OK - the intention was not to shift the work, just to begin collaboration with these folks 09:01:22 ... the other deliverable editors can then help prioritise which issues to focus on 09:01:55 ... in some cases, we just need to synthesize the discussions [to form a conclusion] 09:02:27 kerry: what we could do for SSN in particular, is add these issues to tomorrow's agenda 09:02:56 ... for the others, it's a bit harder, because they're not started yet 09:03:04 frans: seems sensible! 09:03:22 kerry: better to try to resolve these actions F2F ... 09:03:35 ... time deliverable - we might be able to do that 09:03:49 ... coverages deliverable - not really started yet 09:03:56 kerry: does that help 09:04:04 s/help/help?/ 09:04:31 frans: it's good to make sure that the deliverables have a good chain of requirements 09:04:52 ... [with assoc use cases] 09:05:09 ... I see that BP and SSN have already been through this phase 09:05:41 kerry: tracking deliverables back to requirements and use cases is a good idea 09:06:11 ... wouldn't say that SSN has done this yet - BP have done this and this might provide an exemplar to follow 09:06:39 kerry: question to frans - are there any specific actions / issues you want to resolve? 09:07:06 frans: not a good idea to go into the details now - because these are difficult, we'll loose a lot of time 09:08:02 frans: let's try to keep the UCR doc up to date with the work of the deliverables 09:08:18 kerry: we do have _some_ time right now 09:08:28 ... we could try a couple of the harder ones right now 09:08:46 ... are there any? 09:08:58 frans: asks for volunteers :-) 09:09:08 ... how about CRS? 09:09:14 q+ 09:09:18 q+ 09:09:23 q+ 09:09:32 ack kerry 09:09:37 billroberts has joined #sdw 09:09:40 ack jtandy 09:10:02 jtandy: re CRS requirement 09:10:23 jtandy: best rpactice addresses crs 09:10:30 ...by taking some of the heat away.. 09:10:36 ... in the BP we are explaining when you need another CRS than WGS84. Do we think that's a good approach and would it resolve the action? 09:10:54 s/rpactice/practice/ 09:11:17 q? 09:11:53 fantastic! -- i liked what i saw on this in the BP 09:12:12 jtandy: we need guidance on when WGS84 is not enough and when the publisher needs to be explicit (and how to do it) 09:12:23 ... this also goes into geometry etc. 09:12:42 ... How are we able to meet the requirement we've got 09:12:53 q+ 09:13:01 frans: But we've been unable to specify requirments 09:13:32 jtandy: But isn't the req: when is WGS84 not enough and what do I do when not? 09:14:15 present+ billroberts 09:14:25 frans: Has problem with the way it's done in geosparql (conflating CRS URI with geometry) 09:15:21 ... BP editors can try to formulate requirements as the BP document progresses 09:15:28 q? 09:15:44 ack ChrisLittle 09:16:02 ChrisLittle: just to follow up frans comment about chaining back to requirements and use cases 09:16:11 ... the spreadsheet we produced 09:16:18 ... is it deficient? 09:16:27 frans: we stopped working on that 09:16:34 q+ 09:16:41 ... it was just input to our UCR FPWD 09:16:51 q? 09:16:52 ack kerry 09:17:29 kerry: did we resolve the CRS issue? 09:18:36 phila has joined #sdw 09:18:38 jtandy: responds [...] 09:19:00 e.g. in geojson when you specify CRS other than WGS84 most mapping applications that read geojson just ignore that and try to plot it as WGS84. The applications need to show an “unsupported crs” message 09:19:13 ... noting that frans encouraged the BP editors to write down what they understood were the requirements 09:19:36 q+ 09:19:51 kerry: can we write these in the TRACKER now???? 09:19:55 ack bart 09:19:56 ... please :-) 09:20:21 BartvanLeeuwen: asks that we have a short break to organise webex connection 09:20:48 [... short break ...] 09:20:51 ...in other words, requirement that CRS issue needs to be solved on consumer end as well as publisher 09:21:43 [@rachel ... yes I think so] 09:22:25 kerry: do you hear us ? 09:24:25 ChrisLittle_ has joined #sdw 09:24:56 bye 09:25:20 ChrisLittle_ has left #sdw 09:27:04 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 09:27:15 present+ phila 09:27:33 present+ ChrisLittle 09:28:15 present+ frans 09:28:34 q? 09:32:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/08-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:32:15 aharth has joined #sdw 09:32:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/08-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:33:24 q+ 09:33:28 ack kerry 09:37:05 jtandy: asks frans to tell us where we got to ... 09:37:16 eparsons has joined #sdw 09:37:21 Morning !! 09:37:23 [resuming ...] 09:37:49 frans: so we've done topic for point 1 "https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/open" 09:38:17 ... before we finish that, are there any other volunteers to talk about open issues 09:38:21 chair: eparsons 09:38:38 frans: what about ChrisLittle - he sent an email about time requirements 09:38:50 ChrisLittle: no - I think we're fine there 09:38:51 present+ rachel 09:39:04 frans: also - what about SSN folks? 09:39:17 present+ eparsons 09:39:35 ... there's still an open action to turn the reqs from the SSN incubator group into use cases [?] 09:40:02 ... that's a question to kerry: are there still missing SSN requirements in the doc 09:40:18 kerry: I put a summary on the mailing list to cover this 09:40:26 ... still an open action on me 09:40:37 ... leave at that for now and remind me again 09:40:44 ... I've done the analysis 09:41:06 frans: can we do that at the same time as we go through the wiki page for SSN requirements? 09:41:11 ... is that possible? 09:41:24 kerry: ... hmmm ... hmmm ... yes 09:41:35 eparsons: what's the doubt? 09:41:41 kerry: there isn't one 09:42:13 ... the wish list is 98% constructed by me; it's not the original incubator group list, its what people have asked me for 09:42:28 ... these might not actually constitute _requirements_ 09:43:01 eparsons: [agrees] we need to trim the wishlist; having more concrete requirements might help this 09:43:19 ... is this a good mechanism [for managing the scope] of the SSN deliverable 09:43:26 kerry: yes ... 09:43:40 ... we can keep the bigger list for context 09:43:51 eparsons: thanks kerry - that helps 09:45:13 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 09:45:17 kerry: notes that in the spirit of W3C chair training, have a wishlist of things that you _want_ to do, but might not have the resources to get to 09:45:26 present+ ChrisLIttle 09:45:27 ... the SSN wishlist is done in that spirit 09:45:42 present+ ChrisLittle 09:45:59 frans: no other volunteers? 09:46:14 ... we've talked about trying to sync the UCR with other deliverables ... 09:46:29 frans: let's move to the next topic 09:46:37 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Wish_List is the "wish list" of things for ssn I have picked up 09:46:41 topic: Use cases missing arising from recent work? 09:46:49 Thansk Kerry 09:47:06 frans: I have a new use case ... the web is a distributed system 09:47:34 ... it's not always easy to find what you need 09:47:51 ... does the BP doc provide a solution to this? 09:48:11 billroberts: we can't provide a _complete_ resource 09:48:29 eparsons: [agrees] we provide a starting point 09:48:53 frans: proposes that we add this use case, and explicitly say that the BP doc resolves ths 09:48:57 s/ths/this/ 09:49:35 eparsons: this could work - the link has always been implicit, it would hurt to make this explicit 09:49:44 ... what do the BP editors think? 09:49:54 Linda: hmmm ... 09:50:17 frans: so the BP doc provides a starting point to get people going. 09:50:34 ... similar to the "linked data book" that I started with for that topic 09:50:50 Linda: yes- this could work 09:50:53 q+ 09:51:24 ChrisLittle: the only thing that's not explicit in the charter that was provide the _single point of reference_ 09:51:33 ... we provide some best practice 09:51:46 eparsons: we're not trying to be canonical 09:52:03 ... it's only as good as it is when the doc is published 09:52:18 ... it's ok to have this "meta requirement" 09:52:35 ... but don't oversell this as the "final word" 09:53:06 ChrisLittle has joined #SDW 09:53:11 eparsons: maybe what we need is a _short_ summary that helps people get started; the BP doc will [likely] be quite long 09:53:25 q? 09:53:28 q? 09:53:48 frans: yes - the BP doc needs to be read in many ways 09:54:10 aharth has joined #sdw 09:54:13 ack next 09:54:25 jtandy: I noted that you cited the Linked data books as a place to learn about that. Are you hoping that the BP doc will be as informative? 09:54:41 frans: It's called a book but it's a single Web page 09:54:56 billroberts: It's the one Tom Heath did 09:55:15 http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/ 09:55:24 frans: It was a complete narrative with pointers to relevant information so if you needed to pick a single starting point, it was a good one 09:55:25 eparsons: @frans ... you've given yourself a task to write the requirement there 09:55:47 frans: I think that's something to keep in mind when writing the Bp doc 09:56:11 q+ 09:56:12 BartvanLeeuwen: I think there's so much info around about spatial data, it's hard to create a single starting point 09:56:26 BartvanLeeuwen: But I like the objective 09:56:44 Ack eparsons 09:56:44 scribe: phila 09:56:56 eparsons: We recognise that we're not starting with a blank sheet of paper 09:57:03 ... We're opening up that info 09:57:07 scribe: phila 09:57:11 scribeNick: phila 09:57:29 jtandy: I'm concerned that we're setting ourself too big a target 09:57:45 jtandy: I don't think we can aim for publishing a complete ref for spatial data 09:58:38 jtandy: We should limit our focus to getting spatial data 'on the Web' - although I don't think we all agree what that means 09:58:49 ... not about spatial data in general 09:59:25 eparsons: We shoujld recognise 2 braod communiites. Someone who is pubolishing spatial data for the first time 09:59:40 ... the other one is slightly different. I already have data that I probably already publish using OGC services 09:59:47 s/braod/broad/ 09:59:48 ... but I need to do x y z 10:00:03 ... So they start from different points and therefore need to give them both a starting point. 10:00:27 eparsons: You're a good citizen of the Web, it's about URIs, etc. 10:00:40 ... It doesn't need to be an encyclopaedia 10:00:52 q? 10:00:59 frans: If you say on one side that you have a requirement but we can also say that we can't necessarily meete them all. 10:01:02 s/shoujld/should/ 10:01:34 s/meete/meet/ 10:01:37 jtandy: When you word this requirememnt, pls make sure you're talking about publishing spatial data on the Web. 10:02:12 ChrisLittle: The contents of the LD book - there's some good structure there you can reuse (nick) 10:02:19 s/pubolishing/publishing/ 10:02:59 action frans "to write meta requirement that the BP will provide guidance to spatial data publishing" 10:02:59 Created ACTION-135 - "to write meta requirement that the bp will provide guidance to spatial data publishing" [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-02-15]. 10:03:58 jtandy: We have an action to think about how to structure the BPs to give people an 'in' 10:04:19 ... especially for people with a short attention span 10:04:45 frans: Are thereany other use cases arising from recent work. 10:05:03 roblemmens: We're new of course. I've been looking at the UCR and BP doc 10:05:18 ... I've been looking at the ?? paradigm. Are there use cases for that? 10:05:29 VGI 10:05:37 s/??/VGI/ 10:05:43 Another source to look into is "Linked Data Patterns" (by Ian Davis and Leigh Dodds): http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/ 10:05:54 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteered_geographic_information 10:05:58 roblemmens: I saw some frontier issues in the UCR, but maybe they're spread here and there. It's related to provenance of course. 10:06:11 ... For those datasets, you want to know how they came into being 10:06:17 +1 to roblemmens comment 10:06:27 frans: We have this general discoverability requirement that everyone thinks is important. Not going far enough? 10:06:42 roblemmens: You have data in general, but volunteered data... 10:06:53 s/froniter/volunteered/ 10:06:58 +1 to @roblemmens thoughts about VGI; especially regarding provenance of that info 10:07:14 eparsons: Playing devil's advocate - don't issues of provenance solve that? 10:07:17 q+ 10:07:22 ... All that's differnet is the people who cfeate it 10:07:47 s/cfeate/create/ 10:07:49 s/differnet/different/ 10:07:51 eparsons: If you know that this temperature record was made by the Met office vs. someone in their garden, that tells you what you need, no? 10:08:11 roblemmens: But they sometimes form communities that have a common purpose, and that is also discoevrable. 10:08:14 ack j 10:08:14 ack next 10:08:48 q+ 10:08:49 jtandy: So we tried to pick up the VGI stuff in the BP doc. In many situations where people are volunteering that info, they're using existing channels, like Twitter 10:09:09 ... So you end up with unstructured info that the service will probbaly have to process. 10:09:27 jtandy: But yes, VGI is often as structured as official info. OSM is an obvious example. 10:09:42 ack next 10:09:42 s/probbaly/probably/ 10:09:55 ChrisLittle: Ancenstry info is an example., In the UK they've all agreed to use pre-1977 boundary change data 10:10:03 s/discoevrable/discoverable/ 10:10:29 roblemmens: OK, but there are different levels of formality, and depending on that you may need to do more or less pre-processing 10:10:33 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Crowd_sourced_earthquake_observation_information_.28Best_Practice.2CSSN.29 10:10:45 kerry: I wanted to point to that use case ^^ 10:10:53 ... It's a VGI use case, not sure if it made it into the UCR 10:11:07 ... This talks about official info that is volunteered. 10:11:21 ... So maybe we've already covered it? 10:11:46 eparsons: Asks roblemmens to look through the requirements to see if VGI is covered sufficienetly. 10:12:01 s/1977/1972/ 10:12:11 roblemmens: Yes, OK. I'm not sying it's missing, I'm just checking that it has been discussed. 10:12:18 Linda: Do we have requirements on provenance. 10:12:30 frans: Prov is a general data issue 10:12:41 ... So this req is about alignment with existing practices. 10:12:53 action roblemmens Review current Reqs and add one if needed for VGI issues 10:12:53 Error finding 'roblemmens'. You can review and register nicknames at . 10:13:07 frans: Many issues that people deal with, like prov, is not specially spatial 10:13:29 q+ 10:13:41 ack next 10:14:06 Linda: responding to Frans' question about additional UCRs. I sent an e-mail to the list a while back with an addition to the construction use case 10:14:12 ... Do you intend to add that Frans? 10:14:29 frans: I think more discussion is needed. I had questions about it - I created an issue so it won't be forgotten. 10:14:37 Linda: So let's discuss.. 10:15:27 issue-38 10:15:27 issue-38 -- decide if and how to add the proposed use case -- raised 10:15:27 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38 10:16:37 Linda: This is from the construction industry. They find they have to integrate data as construction is in progress. 10:17:07 ... Some data is about real world things, some data is about virtual things/records in a database. Those differences matter of course. So we need some way to model these things. 10:17:24 ... They wrote their whole use case down and I'm hoping it can be added to the UCR. 10:18:18 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Feb/0018.html E-mail thread 10:18:42