IRC log of sdw on 2016-04-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:56:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:56:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-irc
12:56:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
12:56:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
12:56:44 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
12:56:44 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
12:56:45 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:56:45 [trackbot]
Date: 27 April 2016
12:57:00 [eparsons]
Present+ eparsons
12:57:10 [phila]
trackbot, start meeting
12:57:11 [eparsons]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:57:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
12:57:14 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
12:57:14 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
12:57:15 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:57:15 [trackbot]
Date: 27 April 2016
12:57:24 [phila]
present+ phila, eparsons, ahaller2
12:57:30 [eparsons]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160427
12:58:02 [phila]
chair: Ed
12:58:08 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:58:34 [ScottSimmons]
ScottSimmons has joined #sdw
12:59:52 [frans]
frans has joined #sdw
12:59:56 [jtandy]
jtandy has joined #sdw
13:00:31 [eparsons]
Regrets: ChrisL,Rachel, Lars, Frans
13:01:39 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman has joined #sdw
13:01:52 [eparsons]
sorry frans
13:02:01 [jtandy]
zakim, code
13:02:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'code', jtandy
13:02:15 [jtandy]
present+ jtandy
13:02:18 [eparsons]
password is the name of the group 3 letters?
13:02:23 [jtandy]
ah
13:02:31 [joshlieberman]
present+ joshlieberman
13:02:52 [ScottSimmons]
present+ ScottSimmons
13:03:03 [billroberts]
billroberts has joined #sdw
13:03:13 [billroberts]
present+ billroberts
13:04:14 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
13:04:43 [kerry]
kerry has joined #sdw
13:05:02 [kerry]
present+ kerry
13:05:35 [phila]
regrets- Frans
13:06:07 [phila]
present+ frans
13:06:41 [jtandy]
scribe: Jeremy Tandy
13:06:51 [phila]
scribe: jtandy
13:06:54 [phila]
scribeNick: jtandy
13:07:08 [eparsons]
Topic : Approve last week's minutes
13:07:09 [AndreaPerego]
present+ AndreaPerego
13:07:15 [jtandy]
+1
13:07:17 [eparsons]
Proposed : Approve last week's minutes
13:07:17 [AndreaPerego]
+1
13:07:21 [jtandy]
+1
13:07:22 [eparsons]
http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-sdw-minutes.html
13:07:25 [phila]
PROPOSED: Approve previous plenary meeting's minutes
13:07:28 [phila]
+1
13:07:28 [frans]
+!
13:07:31 [frans]
+1
13:07:33 [kerry]
+1
13:07:37 [eparsons]
RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes
13:07:37 [billroberts]
+1
13:07:38 [joshlieberman]
+!
13:07:48 [eparsons]
Topic : Patent Call
13:07:55 [eparsons]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
13:08:02 [jtandy]
eparsons: calls us pedants!
13:08:11 [RaulGarciaCastro]
RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw
13:08:12 [jtandy]
eparsons: main business now ...
13:08:24 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+present RaulGarciaCastro
13:08:28 [jtandy]
... how to best make use of this plenary call? what are you ideas?
13:08:31 [eparsons]
Topic : SSN A primer
13:08:53 [jtandy]
eparsons: sets up kerry to talk about the SSN primer
13:09:12 [jtandy]
kerry: happy to describe- sadly not so many SSN folks in attendance
13:09:14 [kerry]
RESOLUTION: that DUL alignment becomes a note or some other product outside the recommendation
13:09:29 [jtandy]
kerry: we made this resolution in _their_ meeting
13:09:36 [jtandy]
... see above
13:09:39 [phila]
s/RESOLUTION:/We passed a RESOLUTION - /
13:10:17 [jtandy]
kerry: we wanted to publish [things that complement] the core SSN spec - but separate
13:10:38 [jtandy]
kerry: phila suggested a Note, ScottSimmons suggested a few options including
13:11:09 [jtandy]
... the DUL bit could be published as an extension (no thanks!) or a best practice / discussion paper
13:11:31 [jtandy]
... phila later suggested Primer instead of a Note
13:11:41 [jtandy]
... primer seems best; a tutorial
13:11:58 [phila]
phila: q+ to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs
13:12:05 [phila]
q+ to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs
13:12:09 [jtandy]
... DUL won't be the _only_ example of 'extra bits and pieces' required to use the core SSN spec
13:12:26 [jtandy]
kerry: this issue is also likely to hit us with the Time deliverable
13:12:43 [ScottSimmons]
q+
13:12:49 [eparsons]
ack next
13:12:50 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to say that Primers are Notes - we only have Recs and Notes in terms if docs
13:13:05 [jtandy]
... ontology publication (REC track) will be fairly dry - we put the interesting and complementary information in the Primer
13:13:21 [RaulGarciaCastro]
q+ to say that if we don’t recommend DUL, I would not put it in a primer; people could choose to align to others
13:13:26 [eparsons]
ack next
13:13:39 [jtandy]
phila: we only have Notes and Recs ... the Primer could be either Note or Primer ... suggests that we have the SSN Primer as a Note
13:13:55 [jtandy]
ScottSimmons: asks what we want from this doc
13:14:20 [jtandy]
... best practice is a formal endorsement of the OGC community, discussion paper is just "useful"
13:14:36 [jtandy]
kerry: sounds like a discussion paper to me; full of examples
13:15:02 [jtandy]
phila: agrees - a REC is formally endorsed, a Note is not ... more like a discussion paper then
13:15:16 [jtandy]
eparsons: what's the publication process in each case?
13:15:25 [jtandy]
phila: WG agree to publish a Note
13:16:09 [jtandy]
ScottSimmons: recommendation from WG for 8-day vote from TC
13:16:09 [eparsons]
ack next
13:16:10 [Zakim]
RaulGarciaCastro, you wanted to say that if we don’t recommend DUL, I would not put it in a primer; people could choose to align to others
13:16:48 [jtandy]
RaulGarciaCastro: I don't have a clear notion of the semantics of "primer" - but if DUL is outside the core spec, then does this really fit in the Primer?
13:17:02 [jtandy]
... people could use something other than DUL ...
13:17:22 [jtandy]
kerry: we're not saying that DUL is the only alignment you could use
13:17:46 [jtandy]
... the alignment to DUL is proposed as an _example_ ... others are possible
13:17:57 [jtandy]
... but we won't develop that
13:18:32 [jtandy]
kerry: the DUL alignment is just an example [of how to use SSN] - we're not saying that you must (or should) use DUL
13:18:54 [jtandy]
eparsons: we all need to review the primer anyway, so we have a chance to comment on the content
13:19:18 [jtandy]
eparsons: summarises ... Primer it is then - as a W3C Note and OGC Discussion paper
13:19:27 [jtandy]
kerry: requests a vote
13:19:56 [jtandy]
eparsons: are there other deliverables where this approach makes sense? e.g. where you need to complement a dry spec
13:20:13 [jtandy]
... what are other people's thoughts
13:20:49 [kerry]
q+
13:20:53 [phila]
jtandy: Where you have a dry spec that doesn't work well with lots of embedded examples, stick the examples in something else - that makes sense to me
13:21:00 [eparsons]
ack next
13:21:33 [jtandy]
kerry: we're not setting a policy here- just a recommendation for Time ...
13:21:56 [jtandy]
kerry: can we have a resolution that SSN team deliver a REC and a complementary Note?
13:22:01 [phila]
PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL
13:22:30 [jtandy]
kerry: notes that the SSN REC-track FPWD is coming soon!
13:22:30 [phila]
PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note
13:22:35 [jtandy]
+1
13:22:39 [RaulGarciaCastro]
+1
13:22:41 [eparsons]
+1
13:22:41 [ScottSimmons]
+1
13:22:42 [kerry]
+1
13:22:42 [billroberts]
+1
13:22:57 [phila]
RESOLUTION: That the SSN Sub Group should create a Rec for SSN plus a Primer that will include examples using DUL. The latter will be an OGC Discussion paper and W3C Note
13:23:03 [frans]
+1
13:23:10 [jtandy]
eparsons: looks good ... sold to the lady in Australia
13:23:15 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:23:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes.html phila
13:23:20 [eparsons]
Topic: A Spatial Ontology
13:23:49 [jtandy]
eparsons: "the spatial ontology to rule them all" ... we _do_ need to address this
13:24:20 [jtandy]
frans: this topic could be at the core of our mission to [clarify] the spatial data standards landscape
13:24:32 [jtandy]
... there are no clear solutions at the moment
13:24:46 [jtandy]
... there are interoperability issues with all the options today
13:24:58 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:25:04 [jtandy]
... implementers are still at a loss to see which option they should supprot
13:25:10 [jtandy]
s/supprot/support/
13:25:19 [jtandy]
frans: the world is waiting to be told
13:25:33 [jtandy]
frans: there are many ways to approach the spatial ontology
13:25:34 [frans]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/An_agreed_spatial_ontology
13:25:51 [jtandy]
frans: I made this wiki page to collect thoughts around this issue
13:26:16 [jtandy]
... my personal thought is that the spatial ontology should, at least, define geometry as a core concept
13:26:32 [jtandy]
... at a fundamental everyone agrees what a geometry is
13:26:52 [jtandy]
... we probably have lots of standards because [they have evolved from] different perspectives
13:27:29 [jtandy]
... perhaps we need to base our standard on the underpinning [mathematical] theory - rather than a particular domain view
13:27:34 [phila]
q+ to ask 4 questions
13:27:39 [eparsons]
ack next
13:27:40 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to ask 4 questions
13:27:45 [phila]
Do we think there is already a clear preferred spatial ontology?
13:27:45 [phila]
If so, is there consensus on endorsing it?
13:27:45 [phila]
If not, is there one that is within our power to amend?
13:27:45 [phila]
If not, can we present the pros and cons of each and leave it up to implementers?
13:27:47 [jtandy]
frans: so lets start by collecting our thoughts
13:28:25 [jtandy]
phila: question 1- do we already think there is already a preferred spatial ontology? if there is, we should just say that (assuming the group can agree)
13:28:45 [jtandy]
phila: question 2- if there is one that _almost_ works, can we amend that?
13:29:13 [jtandy]
phila: question 3- failing that, can we identify when and where each option should be used?
13:29:35 [jtandy]
frans: we can see a preference for ontologies- but the preference depends on domain
13:29:53 [jtandy]
... for example, spatial folks like GeoSPARQL
13:30:10 [jtandy]
... but this doesn't address all the needs
13:30:17 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:30:26 [eparsons]
q+
13:30:30 [jtandy]
... we could start by trying to evolve GoeSPARQL
13:30:43 [joshlieberman]
q+
13:30:59 [AndreaPerego]
s/GoeSPARQL/GeoSPARQL/
13:31:11 [jtandy]
frans: perhaps we could start with GeoSPARQL
13:31:33 [jtandy]
... and try to make it usable for everyone
13:31:41 [eparsons]
ack next
13:32:00 [jtandy]
eparsons: so - GeoSPARQL seems like a good starting point
13:32:32 [phila]
scribe: phila
13:32:43 [phila]
eparsons: Is this the right level of abstraction?
13:32:55 [phila]
... Does everyone care about points lines and polygons, abstarct soatial features etc.
13:33:08 [phila]
... We might be better off taking about roads, rivers etc.
13:33:17 [AndreaPerego]
s/abstarct soatial/abstract spatial/
13:33:29 [phila]
frans: Should the spatial ontology be about spatial things or about geometry?
13:33:34 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:33:40 [joshlieberman]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-ont-20071023/
13:33:49 [phila]
... If I look at the practical problems - it has to do with expressing geometry (with CRSs in the background)
13:33:57 [phila]
... No practical probs in what a spatial thing is
13:34:15 [phila]
frans: There are already systems in place for classifying
13:34:17 [eparsons]
ack next
13:34:27 [phila]
scribe jtandy
13:34:30 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: I have some comments
13:34:31 [phila]
scribe: jtandy
13:34:42 [jtandy]
... geometry is important
13:35:11 [jtandy]
... we don't need to establish a theoretical validation for geometry - there's lots of existing work
13:35:35 [jtandy]
... we don't need an ontology for geometry- geometry is [... missed ...]
13:36:02 [AndreaPerego]
s/[... missed ...]/for computation/
13:36:04 [billroberts]
joshlieberman said 'geometry is for computation'
13:36:09 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: after 13 years, we still have people saying "lets just use W3C basic Geo"
13:36:25 [jtandy]
... [frustrated]
13:36:43 [jtandy]
... this work is the precursor of GeoSPARQL - which is based on 19107
13:36:56 [jtandy]
... but there's very little traction in the web community
13:37:15 [jtandy]
... if we can figure out why there is a lack of traction then this would be a good start
13:37:28 [phila]
q+ to talk about developers
13:37:48 [jtandy]
frans: agrees. the lack of traction could be that it is (i) unknown, or (ii) doesn't meet all the requirements
13:38:08 [jtandy]
frans: notes that GeoSPARQL doesn't actually identify the geometry definitions
13:38:12 [AndreaPerego]
s/[frustrated]/this work for incorporated and extended by the W3C Geo Ontologies IG (XGR-geo-ont-20071023)/
13:38:34 [AndreaPerego]
s/this work for incorporated/this work was incorporated/
13:38:37 [jtandy]
... this is [impenetrable] for people wanting to transform between different encodings
13:39:07 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: the definitions are incorporated into ISO standards, which are only available for a fee!
13:39:17 [jtandy]
... this is an ongoing issue for OGC
13:39:27 [jtandy]
... (not good for ScottSimmons blood pressure)
13:39:39 [jtandy]
... we want to make these standards web accessible
13:39:56 [ScottSimmons]
(gotta run and up my meds after that comment)
13:40:08 [jtandy]
... there's a difference to starting from scratch; we want to make [the existing work] web accessible
13:40:40 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: we can start from the OWL ontologies that are being derived from the UML models in ISO 19107
13:40:50 [jtandy]
... this was Simon Cox's suggestion
13:41:18 [jtandy]
... perhaps we can develop a web accessible standard based on ISO 19107 and ISO 19109
13:41:30 [frans]
q+
13:41:43 [eparsons]
ack next
13:41:44 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to talk about developers
13:41:49 [jtandy]
... I don't really care if this upsets ISO - but the issue with ISO is about intellectual property of the text- not the data models
13:41:49 [kerry]
q+
13:41:59 [phila]
-> https://youtu.be/NLbyHffKQuU Vladimir Agafonkin's story of creating Leaflet.
13:42:00 [jtandy]
ScottSimmons: agrees ... but this would take time
13:42:33 [jtandy]
phila: a barrier to adoption [of GeoSPARQL] is that it has the word "SPARQL" in it
13:43:06 [eparsons]
ack next
13:43:10 [jtandy]
... also, ref experience from developer of leaflet, who is astounded that you need more than a lat-lon ... surely Google maps [does the heavy lifting]
13:43:34 [jtandy]
... you're not going to get a Web developer to write a SPARQL query
13:43:45 [joshlieberman]
q+
13:43:45 [jtandy]
frans: GeoSPARQL has good points
13:43:56 [jtandy]
... such as the geometry definitions
13:44:01 [jtandy]
... it's modular
13:44:24 [jtandy]
... if we take the route to open up ISO 19107 and ISO 19109
13:44:43 [jtandy]
... can we modularise [GeoSPARQL] to include / refer to these
13:45:18 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: its a pity that Mathew Perry isn't here; he developed the properties
13:45:34 [frans]
q+
13:45:35 [jtandy]
... required to query against (?) geometries
13:45:40 [phila]
s/ ref experience from developer of leaflet, who is/ ref experience from developer of leaflet. In general, developers are/
13:45:53 [billroberts]
q+ to talk about the most important aspects of geometry from a dev point of view
13:46:02 [jtandy]
... this was an add on; didn't realise that this needed to be done until after we'd started
13:46:23 [jtandy]
... modularising GeoSPARQL [is a good idea]
13:46:49 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: we do need to recognise that many developers won't want to do all the complex stuff
13:46:59 [AndreaPerego]
q+ to talk about practical requirements for (a) Web developers & (b) LD guys
13:47:09 [jtandy]
... so we need to map their simple world onto GeoSPARQL
13:47:10 [eparsons]
ack next
13:47:19 [phila]
q- joshlieberman
13:47:22 [jtandy]
... specifically, we need to include GeoJSON
13:47:41 [kerry]
What formalizations of the non-geometric property literals, such as <relationshiptag> are needed to fully satisfy the group's use cases and others like them?
13:47:41 [jtandy]
kerry: I liked where joshlieberman was going with that- sounds sensible
13:48:09 [jtandy]
kerry: copies a sentence from the report that joshlieberman refers to
13:48:32 [jtandy]
... discussing geospatial relationships and the venacular (e.g. "next door to")
13:48:34 [eparsons]
ack next
13:48:42 [jtandy]
... perhaps this could be added to the ontology
13:48:47 [jtandy]
eparsons: back to frans
13:48:53 [joshlieberman]
Yes, the point of the incubator report was that there are several ontologies relevant to spatial data.
13:49:05 [jtandy]
frans: extensibility is another key requirement
13:49:19 [jtandy]
... GeoSPARQL already supports this
13:49:50 [eparsons]
ack next
13:49:51 [Zakim]
billroberts, you wanted to talk about the most important aspects of geometry from a dev point of view
13:49:53 [jtandy]
frans: if we take GeoSPARQL as a starting point can we using this to bridge the gap between spatial and normal data
13:49:57 [joshlieberman]
Could you define what that gap is? Arguably it's a question of coordinate system
13:50:06 [phila]
q+ to talk about JSON-LD context files
13:50:08 [jtandy]
eparsons: intervenes to get back to queue
13:50:36 [jtandy]
billroberts: we quite like a SPARQL query- but mostly, we want to get hold a chunk of geometry
13:50:44 [phila]
q-
13:50:48 [jtandy]
... e.g. the boundary of my town
13:51:14 [jtandy]
... in GeoJSON so that I can work with it - to draw it on a map, put in elastic search etc.
13:51:25 [eparsons]
ack next
13:51:26 [Zakim]
AndreaPerego, you wanted to talk about practical requirements for (a) Web developers & (b) LD guys
13:51:35 [jtandy]
... simply getting the geometries [as objects] would solve 95% of my problems
13:51:49 [jtandy]
AndreaPerego: refers to previous work
13:52:12 [jtandy]
... most web developers just want to get the geometries -
13:52:23 [jtandy]
... in which ever format suits them
13:52:32 [jtandy]
... in the appropriate CRS
13:52:38 [jtandy]
... at the right level of complexity
13:52:50 [jtandy]
AndreaPerego: the main issue is how to fill in the gaps
13:53:14 [jtandy]
... GeoSPARQL has lots of stuff- but doesn't say how to do a bounding box
13:53:42 [joshlieberman]
q+
13:53:45 [jtandy]
... looking from a practical point of view, I am concerned about the ability of the WG to cope with this issue in the time we have
13:53:59 [jtandy]
... should we not try to help reuse what is already available?
13:54:14 [jtandy]
eparsons: good point- we need to consider this
13:54:23 [AndreaPerego]
About gaps: https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Use_case:_Sub-properties_for_locn:geometry
13:54:26 [eparsons]
ack next
13:54:33 [AndreaPerego]
https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Use_case:_CRS_specification
13:54:40 [AndreaPerego]
https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/LOCN_extension:_Metadata
13:55:03 [jtandy]
... how do we go forward? Presumably, this is another deliverable beyond the BP work? Jeremy and Linda to comment
13:55:54 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: W3C and OGC can work together to deliver this
13:56:23 [frans]
Yes, we need as many people on the case as possible
13:56:25 [jtandy]
... timing is an issue; we could get this going in June TC
13:56:39 [phila]
scribe: phila
13:56:59 [phila]
Topic: Virtual F2F
13:57:25 [eparsons]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Agenda_BP_VM_May_2016
13:57:52 [phila]
jtandy: For thos interested - on Tuesday next, European afternoon, 11:00 UTC onwards, we're going to try and work through outstanding issues
13:58:13 [phila]
... make big progress. I've turned the narrative into chunks that have tangible examples in them.
13:58:26 [phila]
... See if they make them constraints, underpinning issues etc.
13:58:43 [phila]
... I suggest we keep the spatial ontology thread separate from that discussion
13:58:53 [phila]
Topic: back to Spatial Ontology
13:59:11 [phila]
eparsons: If we do it as a separate deliverable, we need people. I suggest Frans and Josh?
13:59:19 [jtandy]
q+
13:59:21 [phila]
joshlieberman: I can put some time into that
13:59:25 [frans]
Yes, but we need a larger group
13:59:38 [eparsons]
ack next
13:59:39 [phila]
eparsons: I agree we need a larger group
13:59:54 [phila]
jtandy: I think tis is an issue thatwe might be able to get extra support from the office on.
14:00:10 [jtandy]
s/thatwe/that we/
14:00:18 [phila]
joshlieberman: I point out that we have time on the Thursday in the TC for this. 08:00 Dubline time
14:00:23 [phila]
s/Dubline/Dublin/
14:00:37 [phila]
eparsons: Out of time guys. Please continue on e-mail.
14:00:51 [phila]
eparsons: So we have a new deliverable.
14:00:57 [phila]
... We'll talk again in 2 weeks.
14:01:01 [phila]
#/me no
14:01:10 [phila]
kerry: Two new deliverables tis meeting
14:01:13 [AndreaPerego]
Thanks, and bye!
14:01:14 [frans]
Thanks, bye
14:01:14 [joshlieberman]
bye
14:01:16 [RaulGarciaCastro]
Bye
14:01:17 [billroberts]
thanks bye
14:01:18 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman has left #sdw
14:01:21 [eparsons]
thank all - bye
14:01:32 [kerry]
bye!
14:01:36 [jtandy]
bye
14:01:38 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:01:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:21:39 [jtandy]
jtandy has joined #sdw
16:04:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sdw
17:38:39 [eparsons]
eparsons has joined #sdw