19:57:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
19:57:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-irc
19:57:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:57:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
19:57:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
19:57:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
19:57:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
19:57:08 <trackbot> Date: 16 March 2016
19:57:22 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:57:34 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
19:57:35 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdw
19:58:05 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdw
19:58:27 <eparsons> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160316
19:58:36 <eparsons> Chair: eparsons
19:58:54 <DanhLePhuoc> DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw
19:58:55 <robin> robin has joined #sdw
19:59:06 <robin> present+ robin
19:59:20 <frans> frans has joined #sdw
19:59:22 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
19:59:35 <ClausStadler> present+ ClausStadler
19:59:44 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
19:59:44 <DanhLePhuoc> present+ DanhLePhuoc
19:59:50 <frans> present+ frans
20:00:23 <joshlieberman> present+ joshlieberman
20:00:44 <eparsons> Regrets: Raúl García-Castro, PhilA, Clemens, Scott, ChrisL
20:00:51 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
20:01:34 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
20:01:58 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
20:02:14 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
20:04:18 <jtandy> scribe: Jeremy Tandy
20:04:25 <jtandy> scribenick: jtandy
20:04:34 <jtandy> topic: approval of minutes
20:04:36 <eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
20:04:36 <frans> Thank you Jeremy
20:04:48 <jtandy> eparsons: last weeks minutes were two weeks ago
20:04:50 <eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:00 <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-sdw-minutes.html
20:05:07 <jtandy> +1
20:05:12 <billroberts> +1
20:05:12 <Linda> +1
20:05:15 <ClausStadler> +1
20:05:19 <kerry> +1
20:05:22 <eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes
20:05:23 <KJanowicz> +1
20:05:23 <kerry> present+ kerry
20:05:26 <joshlieberman> +!
20:05:29 <Linda> present+ Linda
20:05:31 <eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
20:05:36 <frans> +0 (I was not there)
20:05:37 <ahaller2> present+ ahaller2
20:05:39 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
20:05:42 <robin> +0
20:05:43 <jtandy> eparsons: lovely jubbly [he's from London]
20:05:50 <ClausStadler> +0
20:05:57 <jtandy> topic: patent call
20:06:06 <eparsons> Topic : Sub-group meeting reports & Feedback
20:06:08 <jtandy> [hearing nothing]
20:06:25 <jtandy> topic: sub-group meetings
20:06:45 <jtandy> eparsons: best approach is to take reports from the various subteams
20:06:54 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdw
20:06:57 <jtandy> ... then we can have a conversation to see what worked
20:07:08 <jtandy> ... we can aim to improve things if need be
20:07:17 <eparsons> SSN subgroup
20:07:23 <jtandy> eparsons: first report back is from kerry
20:07:57 <jtandy> kerry: spent a while with the mechanics ... not straight forward but hopefully fixed for next time
20:08:04 <jtandy> ... trouble using the tracker
20:08:13 <jtandy> ... didn't have a good show of numbers
20:08:24 <jtandy> ... perhaps because of the technical problems
20:08:34 <jtandy> ... we talked about protege - how to use
20:08:42 <jtandy> ... not very productive but useful
20:08:48 <jtandy> ... talked about modularisation
20:08:50 <joshlieberman> The OGC TC meeting last week caused problems with attending the subgroup meetings.
20:09:12 <jtandy> ... should have put this in the tracker; not a clear idea of how many modules there should be
20:09:27 <jtandy> kerry: should the FPWD have modules even?
20:09:38 <jtandy> ... that's about it
20:09:43 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:09:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
20:09:51 <jtandy> ... we did some summary of the datacube stuff
20:09:52 <KJanowicz> but I got it right now :-)
20:10:01 <jtandy> ... difficult to make decisions with so few attendees
20:10:07 <eparsons> Coverage subgroup
20:10:11 <jtandy> ... hopefully we'll get more next time
20:10:31 <jtandy> eparsons: lets talk about numbers/attendance later
20:10:40 <jtandy> eparsons: next is coverages
20:10:53 <jtandy> billroberts: we also had few attendees
20:11:17 <jtandy> ... although kerry brought along a number of students who wanted to do some research projects in this area
20:11:28 <jtandy> ... would like more attendees please
20:11:52 <jtandy> ... good news: Maik Reicherdt (?) from Reading University has agreed to participate
20:12:06 <jtandy> ... we had a good discussion about CoverageJSON [ref please!]
20:12:31 <jtandy> ... we talked about picking criteria for evaluating these solutions
20:12:40 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
20:12:53 <jtandy> ... main part of the meeting about setting up wiki page etc. for capturing these criteria
20:13:05 <jtandy> ... mainly: would like more people involved!
20:13:08 <eparsons> SDW Best Practices
20:13:11 <jtandy> eparsons: thanks billroberts
20:13:19 <jtandy> ... that's a good level of details
20:13:32 <billroberts> @jtandy reference on CoverageJSON: https://github.com/Reading-eScience-Centre/coveragejson/blob/master/spec.md
20:13:34 <jtandy> eparsons: next is BP ... Linda  please
20:13:53 <jtandy> Linda: what we did was to explain the next step for the best practice
20:14:02 <Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative
20:14:14 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:14:19 <jtandy> ... to explain the narrative/scenario that BartvanLeeuwen  has been developing for us
20:14:31 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
20:14:38 <jtandy> ... we developed a list of actors who will be participating in the scenario
20:14:50 <jtandy> ... we agreed to split the work based on actor
20:15:10 <jtandy> ... so the main decision for the group was deciding who does what in the group
20:15:12 <eparsons> sorry having audio issues will need to reconnect
20:15:25 <jtandy> ... each person will try to develop examples and flesh out what needs to be done
20:15:50 <jtandy> ... we need BartvanLeeuwen to give some more details of the scenario - because he knows the subject matter better
20:15:54 <eparsons> I'm back !
20:16:10 <kerry> regrets+ rachel
20:16:10 <jtandy> Linda: we also talked about possibilities of merging some of the best practices
20:16:16 <kerry> regrets+ lars
20:16:23 <kerry> regrets+ Raul
20:16:31 <kerry> regrets+ PhilA
20:16:32 <joshlieberman> Another source of detail for a flooding narrative can be the scenario for OGC Testbed 11.
20:16:39 <kerry> regrets+ clemens
20:16:41 <jtandy> Linda: but first we will working on the narrative & restructure the BPs accordingly
20:16:49 <kerry> regrets+ scott
20:16:53 <jtandy> eparsons: so attendance is a common issue
20:17:02 <kerry> regrets+ ChrisL
20:17:07 <jtandy> ... I'm not too concerned about the numbers
20:17:07 <Linda> q+
20:17:08 <billroberts> q+
20:17:12 <eparsons> ack next
20:17:19 <jtandy> ... so long as the work is sustainable
20:17:30 <eparsons> ack next
20:17:43 <jtandy> Linda: joshlieberman already pointed out that low attendance may have been due to the OGC TC meeting happening in parallel
20:18:09 <jtandy> billroberts: the key issue for me is to make sure that there are enough people's opinions represented
20:18:10 <KJanowicz> Time changes are sometimes very difficult to handle for many of us.
20:18:27 <frans> q+
20:18:28 <kerry> q+
20:18:47 <jtandy> billroberts: don't want to do lots of work and _then_ to find out that the majority don't agree
20:19:07 <eparsons> ack next
20:19:09 <jtandy> eparsons: fair enough- but these groups are largely self selecting
20:19:23 <jtandy> ... so if they are interested in a topic they _will_ be there
20:19:25 <joshlieberman> Small amounts of work followed by review would help with getting away from consensus.
20:19:37 <jtandy> frans: can we recruit people from other communities?
20:19:38 <KJanowicz> I would not suggest to do so
20:19:48 <KJanowicz> The group is already pretty big and diverse
20:19:52 <jtandy> ... e.g. from specialist groups like time or SSN
20:20:05 <eparsons> ack next
20:20:08 <jtandy> eparsons: trouble is that they need to be part of the overall group
20:20:11 <joshlieberman> q+
20:20:34 <jtandy> kerry: there are a few people who told me that they will come to the subgroup meetings not the main meeting
20:20:44 <jtandy> ... let's run a bit longer before we change
20:20:55 <KJanowicz> q+
20:20:58 <jtandy> ... also concerned that we need sufficient participation
20:21:27 <jtandy> ... please in the subgroups can we be especially careful about recoding minutes / actions / etc. in the minutes so that people can
20:21:44 <jtandy> ... follow the subgroup meetings whilst not actually participating
20:22:10 <jtandy> ... if we capture those resolutions, we may be able to get people to comment _before_ too much work is done
20:22:22 <jtandy> eparsons: agreed ... we need to be following this process
20:22:34 <jtandy> ... reporting back to the main group as an "FYI"
20:22:39 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
20:22:41 <eparsons> ack next
20:22:54 <jtandy> ... only if there is a _huge_ problem should the decisions of subgroups be challenged
20:23:12 <jtandy> joshlieberman: raises both the participation and consensus issue
20:23:41 <jtandy> ... the geosemantics DWG in OGC demonstrated that the work of this group is not very visible in OGC
20:24:01 <jtandy> ... there are a lot of people in the OGC who are interested in JSON, Linked Data etc.
20:24:22 <jtandy> ... but many people just think "oh - it's those geosemantics wonks"
20:24:45 <jtandy> ... perhaps we can use the subgroups to capture information for wider sharing in OGC
20:25:05 <KJanowicz> Josh: this is one of the reasons why we are doing the SDW16 workshop as well
20:25:06 <jtandy> ... need to clarify with Denise McK about the best way to do this
20:25:26 <jtandy> eparsons: so is the issue that the connection is _only_ via the geosemantics group
20:25:40 <jtandy> joshlieberman: no - I think that connection is fine ...
20:25:49 <jtandy> ... but we need wider communication
20:26:06 <frans> Do we have enough public exposure on the W3C side?
20:26:19 <jtandy> ... for example, talking to the Architecture Board or reporting to the TC plenary or doing a frequent blog post
20:26:45 <jtandy> joshlieberman: and as frans says, making sure that we address concerns from W3C groups too
20:26:54 <eparsons> action joshlieberman to talk to OGC about the appropriate forum to report back
20:26:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Talk to ogc about the appropriate forum to report back [on Joshua Lieberman - due 2016-03-23].
20:26:59 <eparsons> ack next
20:27:03 <jtandy> eparsons: we rely on @phila to put things in the W3C context
20:27:21 <jtandy> KJanowicz: wants to highlight two things
20:27:30 <joshlieberman> echo coming from you Ed.
20:27:35 <jtandy> ... i) we have enough people in the core group
20:27:47 <jtandy> ... what we need is more outreach
20:27:55 <jtandy> ... we need to invite others to review our work
20:28:37 <jtandy> ... ii) because this is a long standing group, we have to cope with day light savings times
20:28:47 <frans> More rounds of inviting public comments are needed perhaps? So more draft versions of deliverables?
20:28:59 <jtandy> ... just one hour change causes me problems because it clashes with teaching periods
20:29:06 <KJanowicz> yes sub-groups will make timing less of a problem
20:29:14 <eparsons> ack next
20:29:15 <jtandy> eparsons: KJanowicz - will the subgroups help the timing issues
20:29:24 <kerry> it does not help when there are Aussies involved....
20:29:32 <jtandy> ... because we can target the right time for the participants
20:29:48 <jtandy> BartvanLeeuwen: one of the things I saw in another WG
20:29:58 <jtandy> ... where issues are closed in subgroups
20:30:18 <jtandy> ... we provide a brief overview of the subgroup issues [back to the main group]
20:30:34 <jtandy> ... this is a courtesy to those who do not have the time to follow everything
20:30:36 <kerry> +1 to Bart's suggestion, but we cannot spend all the core meeting just reporting back -- we need to do work there too!
20:30:57 <jtandy> eparsons: [not sure] but it's probably too early to tell
20:31:02 <joshlieberman> It did not take me long to review the minutes from the subgroup meetings I missed, but detail and organization will be even more important in using them to keep up going forward.
20:31:03 <jtandy> ... agree with the points made
20:31:22 <jtandy> eparsons: most important thing is to keep making progress on the deliverables
20:31:35 <jtandy> ... after a month or so if we're not making progress
20:31:39 <jtandy> ... then we shoudl review
20:32:07 <jtandy> eparsons: asking the subgroup leaders if they want to try anything drastically different
20:32:27 <Linda> q+
20:32:32 <jtandy> jtandy: stick with it for a couple more iterations
20:32:33 <eparsons> ack next
20:32:48 <jtandy> Linda: wondering then what do we do in this full group meeting
20:32:52 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
20:32:59 <jtandy> ... is it just reporting back or are we going to try to do other things?
20:33:04 <jtandy> eparsons: good question
20:33:23 <jtandy> ... we _will_ have to report back to make sure that everyone is aware of what is happening
20:33:43 <jtandy> ... I also expect that the subgroup leaders will identify issues that need broader discussions
20:33:58 <jtandy> ... the primary goal for the main group will be to report back
20:33:59 <BartvanLeeuwen> q-
20:34:20 <kerry> q+
20:34:24 <jtandy> ... it may even be necessary to have subgroup meetings in _this_ week too
20:34:26 <eparsons> ack next
20:34:31 <jtandy> ... interested to hear what you think
20:34:47 <frans> I would expect some overarching issues will come up in the subgroups
20:34:51 <jtandy> kerry: I think we can't afford _not_ to be working in these groups
20:35:04 <jtandy> kerry: if we don't deal issues [missing]
20:35:30 <jtandy> kerry: [returns ... but dropped out audio]
20:35:37 <frans> q+
20:35:43 <jtandy> kerry: we need to make sure we are doing work here too
20:36:08 <jtandy> eparsons: agreed ... most of the topics coming [for discussion in the main group] will be coming from the subgroups
20:36:32 <jtandy> kerry: agreed - subgroups should be nominating topics that require broader conversation
20:36:45 <eparsons> ack next
20:36:55 <jtandy> ... for the most part it's been eparsons and I that have been nominating topics for the meeting
20:37:03 <jtandy> ... I think this can continue
20:37:09 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:37:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
20:37:16 <jtandy> frans: a while back we had topic of technology talks
20:37:26 <jtandy> ... perhaps this is also something we can make time for
20:37:51 <kerry> +1 tech talks -- especially on best practice exemplars -- this is good for the main group
20:37:56 <jtandy> eparsons: this is true - and probably appropriate for the BP group mostly
20:38:18 <jtandy> ... but also tech talks would be pertinent for the sub-groups too
20:38:40 <jtandy> eparsons: because we're all involved in the subgroups
20:38:51 <jtandy> ... we can collectively monitor what's going on
20:39:10 <jtandy> ... but we don't want to loose the opportunity to work together
20:39:25 <jtandy> eparsons: ok - so we'll carry on with the subgroups
20:39:47 <jtandy> ... can group leaders remember to communicate well ahead of time
20:39:54 <eparsons> Topic : Timing of calls during the Summer
20:40:10 <jtandy> eparsons: if there's nothing more about the subgroups, let's move onto the next topic
20:40:14 <kerry> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20160406T13&ah=1
20:40:32 <kerry> q+
20:40:34 <jtandy> eparsons: we need to pick a new time
20:40:37 <eparsons> ack next
20:40:48 <jtandy> eparsons: we need to pick a good time for all of us
20:41:21 <jtandy> kerry: reminds that US and Europe in one direction, and Australia moves the other way ... so we get a two week change
20:41:34 <jtandy> ... last time we postponed until the Aus time change
20:41:40 <jtandy> ... in early April
20:41:50 <jtandy> ... please- let's change _only_ once!!
20:42:10 <jtandy> kerry: we're talking about only the main meeting
20:42:34 <jtandy> ... but notes that SSN and Coverages are also in the same slot
20:42:53 <jtandy> ... [summary: no one is happy all the time!]
20:43:10 <jtandy> kerry proposes 1pm UTC as the best slot
20:44:14 <KJanowicz> So, 6am PDT?
20:44:36 <MattPerry> Yes. 9am EDT
20:45:09 <jtandy> kerry: repeats - not a friendly time for US or Aus
20:45:14 <KJanowicz> Would 2pm UTC work?
20:45:24 <jtandy> eparsons: ok for Europe; lunchtime
20:45:24 <KJanowicz> yes :-)
20:45:40 <KJanowicz> 1:30pm UTC?
20:45:45 <jtandy> eparsons: asks KJanowicz is 6am is too early
20:45:50 <jtandy> KJanowicz: yes
20:46:02 <jtandy> eparsons: but if we go later this is problem for Aus
20:46:09 <billroberts> q+
20:46:14 <eparsons> ack next
20:46:18 <jtandy> eparsons: does 30 mins make a big difference
20:46:30 <jtandy> billroberts: middle of the day UK time is fine [!]
20:46:58 <jtandy> ... other possibility is 6am UTC
20:47:10 <joshlieberman> 6am UTC is 2am eastern US -- sketchy
20:47:30 <jtandy> billroberts: [summarises the times in other timezones]
20:47:45 <jtandy> eparsons: this is only for the main meeting
20:47:56 <kerry> +q
20:48:02 <jtandy> ... the other meetings can pick accordingly
20:48:03 <eparsons> ack next
20:48:12 <jtandy> eparsons: happy with 13:00 utc
20:48:18 <joshlieberman> +1
20:48:22 <jtandy> ... unless there are any objectives
20:48:28 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:48:51 <jtandy> kerry: looking at the subgroups, only the BP has a strong european dominance
20:48:55 <KJanowicz> But for the SSN subgroups we have a good eeting time, right?
20:49:15 <jtandy> ... all the others are constrained to this time slot as we need Australian input
20:49:38 <jtandy> eparsons: so are we in a position to move to 13:00utc on April 6?
20:49:47 <jtandy> [very quiet]
20:49:49 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:49:53 <jtandy> eparsons: speak now ...
20:49:54 <billroberts> +1
20:49:55 <frans> +1
20:49:57 <ahaller2> +1
20:49:57 <jtandy> +1
20:49:57 <Linda> +1
20:49:57 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
20:49:58 <KJanowicz> -1
20:49:59 <ClausStadler> +1
20:50:06 <DanhLePhuoc> +1
20:50:12 <jtandy> eparsons: ok - done
20:50:16 <KJanowicz> np
20:50:26 <KJanowicz> thx ;-)
20:50:35 <frans> I would not mind a half our sooner or later
20:50:48 <KJanowicz> q+
20:50:52 <frans> s/half our/half hour/
20:50:56 <eparsons> ack next
20:51:02 <jtandy> kerry: for KJanowicz the SSN is particularly important
20:51:09 <jtandy> ... we could reconsider
20:51:33 <jtandy> KJanowicz: ok- for the main meeting it is only once every two weeks ... I'll try to make this
20:51:52 <KJanowicz> As long as I can do the SSN dates, I am 'happy' with 6am for the Wed meetings
20:52:18 <jtandy> q+
20:52:23 <eparsons> ack next
20:52:31 <Linda> q+
20:52:41 <eparsons> scribe: eparsons
20:53:17 <eparsons> jtandy : how to bring geosparql and geojson people together
20:53:47 <eparsons> jtandy : does not work on web so geojson people will never like
20:54:15 <KJanowicz> you mean in a geosparql geometry statement?
20:54:21 <eparsons> jtandy: therefore allow json as a literal
20:54:37 <joshlieberman> GeoJSON geometry is specific to JSON - not applicable either to XML, text, or RDF.
20:54:50 <AndreaPerego> q+ to say that this what we are doing in GeoDCAT-AP
20:54:52 <eparsons> jtandy : Off the wall idea ?
20:54:58 <joshlieberman> Can define transformations, but each doesn't work well in the other encodings.
20:55:03 <eparsons> ack next
20:55:26 <frans> I think it is a very good idea to start comparing solutions for encoding geometry
20:55:35 <ClausStadler> i ithink this would rather lead to a sparql extension for native json support (so its not geosparql specific)
20:55:58 <eparsons> ack next
20:55:59 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say that this what we are doing in GeoDCAT-AP
20:56:35 <eparsons> AndreaPerego : geodcat-ap has similar issue for geometry encoding
20:57:00 <frans> q+
20:57:13 <eparsons> AndreaPerego : Allow encoding choice
20:57:35 <eparsons> AndreaPerego : Geojson appears in a number of use cases
20:57:51 <eparsons> AndreaPerego : Also, GML, KML etc
20:58:15 <MattPerry> q+
20:58:34 <eparsons> AndreaPerego : recommends > one encoding
20:59:09 <eparsons> ack next
21:00:07 <eparsons> ack next
21:01:04 <joshlieberman> q+
21:01:21 <ClausStadler> Select * { ?s ?p ?o . Filter(geosparql:st_instersect(geojson:geometryOf(?o), ...) } # introduce a new function that extracts a geometry from a (geo)json literal. DBMS could provide functional indexes
21:01:21 <eparsons> ack next
21:02:05 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
21:02:06 <KJanowicz> bye bye
21:02:08 <joshlieberman> bye
21:02:08 <Linda> bye
21:02:08 <billroberts> thanks, bye
21:02:11 <BartvanLeeuwen> bye
21:02:12 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has left #sdw
21:02:13 <jtandy> [noting that joshlieberman said geojson & json & json-ld is happening in testbed OWS 12]
21:02:15 <frans> live long and prosper!
21:02:16 <jtandy> ciao
21:02:17 <kerry> bye!
21:02:17 <MattPerry> bye
21:02:22 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:02:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/16-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
23:32:55 <newton> newton has joined #sdw
23:35:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw