Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

17 Feb 2016


See also: IRC log


kerry, eparsons, robin, ScottSimmons, antoine, rachel, RaulGarciaCastro, BernadetteLoscio, frans, AndreaPerego, laufer, Caroline, jtandy, Linda, newton, SimonCox, MattPerry, ChrisLittle, phila
Clemens, Andreas, Lewis, Lars


<eparsons> Hello Newton - welocme

<AndreaPerego> same here.

<eparsons> try again I have only just connected to webex

<eparsons> OK let me see...

<eparsons> hello Caroline

<eparsons> webex seems to be OK noew ?

<eparsons> ah OK the password in wrong - will change topic

<joshlieberman> +joshlieberman

<eparsons> scribe: Kerry

<scribe> scribeNick: Kerry

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2016/02/03-sdw-minutes

<eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

<Linda> +1

<eparsons> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ScottSimmons> _1

<jtandy> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<frans> +1

<robin> +1

<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

RESOLUTION: approve last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/02/03-sdw-minutes

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

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

no comments

<eparsons> Topic : Short update on F2F Meeting last week

geonovum hosted, thankyou Linda and genovum

scribe: lots of work on deliverables
... key takeaway is that we have much more territory moving forward
... weekly calls will focus on a differnt deliverable each week, multiple calls each week, all together maybe only alternate weeks
... discussed at f2f
... will pin down next week
... geonovum meeting was productive

<SimonCox_> And thanks to everyone who made the time and effort to attend! (AMersfoorth)

<eparsons> Topic : Coordination with DWBP

scribe: anything else must be said?

ed: welcome to DWBP
... we will steal whatever content we can!

<Caroline> we are happy to join this call :)

ed: will hand over to Jeremy and linda, our best practice editors... we want to be coordinated

ChrisLittle: i want to point out that we discuss things that seem out of scope e.g. time as they are in scope for us (not just spatial)

<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Feb/0060.html

jtandy: thankyou to dwbp for joining us; it is a great document now; tremendous job

<eparsons> here..here !

jtandy: our focus is more specific to dwbp, but we need to provide stuff that is additional for spatial data
... we will build on your work...
... the first thing "homework" was how DWBP is referencing spatial data and if they are done well
... e.g dubious use of rdf propert to reference a spatial concept
... but bp 2 6 8 9 are all using dct: spatial now
... has changed very recently

<Linda> S/spatial/spatial

<joshlieberman> dct:spatial <http://www.geonames.org/3399415>;

<BernadetteLoscio> :)

jtandy: is dct:spatial ok? I think so, what about others?

<Linda> +1 ok to me

phila_: it was dcterms: description I was worried about, not dct:spatial

jtandy: the only dcterms:descriptions are ... [missed] nothing spatial

<jtandy> [dct:description "CSV distribution of the bus timetable dataset of MyCity."]

BernadetteLoscio: pleasure to be here
... wanting to describe discovery metadata, temporal and spatial data about the dataset
... but you are interested in the data itself?

<ChrisLittle> discovery is not actually mentioned in the BP is it?

jtandy: correct -- largeley the structured spatial data but also the descriptions for discovery

<joshlieberman> Also interested in the spatial data that is used as metadata for other datasets...

jtandy: your spatial descriptions of dataset look good to me
... one BP I will raise
... BP16 use of standardised terms

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized

<frans> is http://www.geonames.org/3399415 an instance of dcterms:location?

<jtandy> "The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) could define the notion of granularity for geospatial datasets, while [DCAT] vocabulary provides a vocabulary reusing the same notion applied to catalogs on the Web."

<BernadetteLoscio> i agree!

<phila> +1 to jtandy on that

<BernadetteLoscio> +1

jtandy: not a statement about spatial but it looks odd referring to OGC this way, may not be useful to say a sdo should do more work
... comments?

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Jeremy on OGC comment

antoine: i was involved in this, will try to track history, would say you are right

<phila> OK if I raise an action in DWBP for you on that antoine?

jtandy: that BP refers to use of standardised terms -- if we could find a codelist that does this would be good but not clear now

<frans> I read it as an example: a domain standards organisation can provide definitions for domain concepts

antoine: is there one at the OGC?

jtandy: anyone know?

<ChrisLittle> is granularity different from resolution?

jtandy: is there a vocab or codelist for granularity of geospatial data sets?

joshlieberman: is an iso19115 thing

<AndreaPerego> I would say that temporal / spatial resolution is a specific type of granularity.

<KJanowicz_> Agreed

SimonCox_: level of detail is in citygml may be related

<KJanowicz_> I do not think that those terms do yet exist

<frans> I have seen LoD elsewhere in OGC documents too.

jtandy: these codelists happen in lots of places

BernadetteLoscio: I agree this needs to change, maybe present examples of codelists?

jtandy: we could find an example of data refs a controoled vocab

<AndreaPerego> None I'm aware of.

jtandy: anyone got one?

<KJanowicz_> yes

<BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!

<KJanowicz_> See e.g., R2R

jtandy: [silence]

KJanowicz_: [cannot hear]

<joshlieberman> units!

<AndreaPerego> There's QUDT for units of measurement...

KJanowicz_: ... very common use of codelists is observational data of mathematical [?] I can supply

<phila> Any chance of a URL in the IRC pls KJanowicz_ ?

jtandy: codelist for instruments -- is it published by a recognised authority?

<AndreaPerego> QUDT (Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Data Types Ontologies): http://www.qudt.org/

<KJanowicz_> http://schema.geolink.org/voc/index.html

KJanowicz_: yes -- i will provide the example

<BernadetteLoscio> ok! thanks!

<KJanowicz_> Just as one examplel: http://schema.geolink.org/1.0/voc/nvs/L05.html#d4e575

jtandy: DWBP please let us know if this is not what you need

<joshlieberman> Granularity may be problematic since it is unclear that there is a single definition of spatial granularity, let alone a code list or metric.

jtandy: now want to show some of our BPs


<KJanowicz_> The source is: vocab.nerc.ac.uk

antoine: : content looks ok but is the authority really there? Is it a NASA official thing? or just a project result?

KJanowicz_: it is authoritative [not sure]

SimonCox_: there are multiple groups in NASA doing units -- qudt may not be the only one from NASA

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about normative and all that

antoine: looking at second link it looks good

phila: difference between 2 groups: dwbp is rec track so higher bar for references -- could ask Lewis to take a look for us

<rachel> adam leadbetter

phila: could look into stability, would need director approval to link to either, the NERC one looks better
... as long as we are not making a normative statement it could be ok -- only guidance

<KJanowicz_> measuremen-types are a common example for shared codelists, e.g., for NitrateConcentration. another example are instrument types. Those codelists are used by large communities in data repositories such as R2R,BMO-DCO,...

jtandy: asks simon about international rock types referenced by geosciml

<rachel> yes, rare turn up for a weds !

SimonCox_: custodianship is geoscience australia asking australian national data service, not yet stable
... content is stable but publication platform may not be

<SimonCox_> See http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/ics/ischart/ for example

<Linda> What about the inspire codelists?

rachel: I am on the working group for this -- is authoritative

jtandy: dwbp and sdw neet tight links on some BPs
... anybody have an issue here -- BPs of DWBP that we reference?

frans: yes, the need for having indications of precision , geo coords are numbers
... does dwbp have something on precision e.g. significant digits?

jtandy: e.g. we often see 15 dec places where it should be 1

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Frans comment

<phila> I don't recall seeing anything on that in DWBP

frans: yes it is wrong and space-consuming -- we see it in coordinates but it could be in other data on the web

<KJanowicz_> This is not specific to spatial data, it is just a wrong way to report on accuracy.

jtandy: not covered in dwbp now

<ChrisLittle> Precision and accuracy need to be addressed

newton: we do not work at this level of the data, we have not identified this requirement

<rachel> there is a section on data quality, and precision could be included there?

newton: we could work together for a new BP to do this

jtandy: general problem around numerical data -- beter for dwbp

antoine: i am wondering where this sits in our products... we are also doing a note on the quality vocab and precision can sit here

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to make ChrisLittle happy

antoine: we have not identified such precise requirements

<frans> precision can be expressed in metadata, but should be in the data themselves too

<phila> DQV

phila: am putting in link to dqv -- t his is the right place, but the people for this are not here now
... e.g. lawrence Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and pacific northwest people

<AndreaPerego> @Antoine, I think precision / accuracy can be indeed in scope of DQV (along with granularity)

phila: will raise an issue in dwbp to work on this
... those o ther vocabs also dataset usage will be useful at another time

<ChrisLittle> good examples are temperature and currencies

joshlieberman: say something provocative... granularity
... bp like "use an api" to enable fine-grained access
... but only bp is to provide that api data access but we want finer grained access to data elements
... is the dwbp thinking fine-grained access is not a big problem?

phila: APIS comes up a lot -- this is not stable in BP doc

Caroline: need to work a lot on APIs , is a weakest piece, would someone here like to help?

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask what the timescales are for resolving the API-related best practices?

phila: suggest dwbp asks josh and SDW to review this area -- is 'any API on the web" the good scope? we have a lot of feedback from eric wilde
... hoping to go to CR mid march, ie 4 weeks

Caroline: putting schedule on irc
... expect to delay another week

<Caroline> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp-status.html

joshlieberman: question not whether you should use an api, but practice on granularity of data e.g. really small bits like just a latitude alone
... we can share this for spatial and temporal
... waht is the minimum granularity that is useful?

phila: comes up more in sdw than dw -- it might be dw that handles this

joshlieberman: agree, but all is connencted to everything

KJanowicz_: we have to stop triplifying all data--- what should be triples and what not?

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about bp26

jtandy: bp 26 "use an api"' relates to our "convenince" apis. we suggest you desing your api for a partiular purpose around useful questions
... we also think APIs can describe what they can give you
... we also want an api search function -- give us the right resource about a plce called London
... these might also be relevant for DW API thinking
... an additional call for APIs topic?

<AndreaPerego> +1

BernadetteLoscio_: We should come back to this. As said it has been discussed but not stable.

<jtandy> [jtandy is happy to contribute to the further API discussions]

eparsons: will organise a followup meeting

<jtandy> [and that follow up meeting needs to be _soon_ given their timescales]

<scribe> ACTION: eparsons to organise followup meeting on APIs with Data on the Web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Organise followup meeting on apis with data on the web [on Ed Parsons - due 2016-02-24].

<KJanowicz_> +1

ChrisLittle: tilesets need differen levels of granularity -- needs to be teased out

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask a question about Memento and BP8

ChrisLittle: [another example scribe missed]

jtandy: versioning BP8 makes use of memento
... waht is adoption of Memento that justifies this?

<jtandy> [Best Practice 8: versioning information]

phila: not a should or must -- but many people keen -- uneasy as it may not be adopted much -- may ask for comment on thi specifically

BernadetteLoscio_: we tried to give 2 examples, one without Memento and one with
... we can also include other implementation approaches as examples

<jtandy> dct:publisher:transport-agency-mycity

BernadetteLoscio_: was only to show examples

<ChrisLittle> ض+

jtandy: turtle example had 2 colons without pred and obj -- not well formed turtle, is in a few places

eparsons: api meeting may be with a subset of SDW team

BernadetteLoscio_: identifiers: we should also discuss this as we both have something here

jtandy: ok -- running out of time-- next week? after Chris talks about time

<Zakim> rachel, you wanted to suggest building on the transport example in our examples - with full geometry of routes, live bus locations etc

eparsons: could be next week

<Caroline> we may join again next week :)

rachel: yes, lets make our BPs aligned could build on our transport example, could also match naming

<newton> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Conneg

newton: bp 22 conneg, I am involved in this and will work on it tomorrow, please send email jeremy

<BernadetteLoscio_> +1 Rachel

<BernadetteLoscio_> thank you!!!

eparsons: will pick this up next week too

<frans> Thank you. Getting the two WGs together was a good idea.

<Caroline> thank you!

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<newton> Thank you! Bye

eparsons: will do conneg, apis and chris issues

<BernadetteLoscio_> bye!!

<Linda> Bye!

<laufer> bye...

<rachel> bye!

<eparsons> bye

<RaulGarciaCastro> bye!

<KJanowicz_> bye bye

<robin> Bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: eparsons to organise followup meeting on APIs with Data on the Web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve last week minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/02/03-sdw-minutes
[End of minutes]