W3C

Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

08 Jun 2016

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
frans, nicky, ByronConNZ, eparsons, billroberts, kerry, ClausStadler, roba, ahaller2, jonblower, BartvanLeeuwen, AndreaPerego, jtandy, joshli, phila
Regrets
Rachel, Lars, Simon, Linda, Matt, payam, Scott
Chair
kerry
Scribe
robatkinson

Contents


<kerry> trackbot, start meeting

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

<trackbot> Date: 08 June 2016

<ClausStadler> hi, what's this call's webex password?

ok

<kerry> scribe: robatkinson

<kerry> *

<kerry> scribeNick; roba

<kerry> approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes.html

<eparsons> +1

<kerry> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<billroberts> +1

<frans> +1

<ClausStadler> +0

RESOLUTION: approved minutes

patent call..

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call patent call

ISSUE-18 model reuse and ISSUE-19 Multiple types of coverage and Related actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115)

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18

<frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse

frans references discussion on list - asks if resolution

billroberts - not resolved - passed back to plenary

kerry - reports coverage consensus not a requirement - a good practice

<kerry> Propose: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR

<billroberts> +1

+1

<jtandy> +1

<frans> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19 ISSUE 19

<frans> Issue 19 is about this requirement: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage

frans: requirement is not clear - ask bill for report from coverage sub-group

<phila> issue-19?

<trackbot> issue-19 -- Multiple types of coverage requirement -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19

billroberts: agreed we should not try to be comprehensive - concentrate on common cases
... regular gridded coverages as the most common type
... not sure how this addresses requirement in UCR
... prioritise simplicity over completeness

<frans> Current requirement text: ¨It should be possible to represent many different types of coverage. For instance, to classify coverage data by grid complexity: GridCoverage (GML 3.2.1), RectifiedGridCoverage, ReferenceableGridCoverage, etc.¨

<kerry> roba: part of discussion was that if we were to focus on a common case we do not want to close of capability to allow description of more general cases e.g. point cloud where gridded may be a degenerate case

<kerry> ...some middle ground between all types and only simple ones.

<kerry> ...leave some room for describing more complex cases without interfering with simple cases

<phila> close issue-18

<trackbot> Closed issue-18.

jtandy: interested in environmental data - important not to fall over ourselves achiveing simple grids - lots of other coverages - timeseries and profiles

,,, not trying to be comprehensive is appropriate - but at least one example of a non-grid coverage

<phila> chair: kerry

jonblower: what does it mean to support different types of cov: RDF encoding or conceptual model?

<frans> ys, that is the question: what is meant?

frans: that is the question - UCR can be interpreted either way,

jonblower: endorses jtandy suggestion

billroberts: agrees extensible but not a concrete implementation for all, grid + 1 other at least to be elucidated

<jtandy> "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage ... which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc.

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest that "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage

billroberts: coverage WG members invited to suggest other type

kerry: we do have UC...

<frans> The question which coverage types should be supported is not the same as the question how the requirement should be understood

jtandy: makes proposal

<jtandy> +1 to jonblower about gridded coverage and timeseries (at single point) as priority coverage types to examine


.jonblower: pointclouds most complex, suggests timeseries as priority

<ChrisLittle> +1

<Kerry_> which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc.

<jtandy> +1

+1

<frans> +1

<eparsons> +1

<Kerry_> +1

<billroberts> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<frans> This effectively resolves the issue, I think

<jtandy> ... and that we will prioritise gridded coverage and timeseries in the examples

<jtandy> I think that's a comment for the editors

<frans> +1 to bill

<jonblower> +1 to bill

RESOLUTION: reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded "

<Kerry_> action-114?

<trackbot> action-114 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-18 -- due 2015-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/114

<scribe> ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Reword issue 19 [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15].

<Kerry_> close action-114

<trackbot> Closed action-114.

<Kerry_> action-115?

<trackbot> action-115 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-19 -- due 2016-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/115

<Kerry_> close action-115

<trackbot> Closed action-115.

<eparsons> close issue-19

<trackbot> Closed issue-19.

ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems

<phila> issue-32?

<trackbot> issue-32 -- Clarification required on requirement about Independence on reference systems -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32

frans: possible duplicate requirement identified - due to multiple teams working in parallel

<Kerry_> +1

<frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems

<frans> ttp://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem

<Kerry_> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<jtandy> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: merge requirements

<Kerry_> close issue-32

<trackbot> Closed issue-32.

<scribe> ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Update ucr [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15].

<jtandy> /me - don't we need to have a "proposed" before we "resolve"?

F2F meeting plan

kerry: getting close to critcal timing
... deliverables - SSN in FPWD, UCR needs closing off soon, issues waiting on other deliverables
... time - work done, no meeting - schedule FPWD soon

<jonblower> sorry, got to leave now. bye all

kerry: coverage - a way off

<jtandy> just FPWD

kerry: BP - at FPWD - "deserves another release"
... should publish updates before F2F meeting

<jtandy> [sorry - feeling dumb ... are we talking about OGC TC dublin or W3C TPAC lisbon?]

kerry: at F2F SSN memebers present, Time not so..

<jtandy> ah!

<jtandy> then I can agree to another release :-)

kerry: not official F2F at dublin, josh confirms

<Kerry_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon

<phila> Our meeting at TPAC is 19-20 Sept

<joshli> Still and issue, unfortunately, that the TPAC overlaps the OGC meeting in Orlando.

kerry: what to do - close off at F2F ?

eparsons: as evil co-chair would like to see iterations of docs before TPAC - use TPAC to revise

<frans> UCR can have another iteration too - provided the remaining issues get enough group attention

jtandy: BP iteration by end July - will check with co-editors - work not yet reflected. Payam with more time, Linda also planning to make time

BartvanLeeuwen: has meeting of related project at same time - does not expect feedback by then

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to drill a little into 'End of July'

BartvanLeeuwen: suspects early September better for attention than July

phila: asks for "before editors go on holiday to allow time to review" - Sept is a long time for an update.
... takes time for group to review and consider before formal publication

<eparsons> And I thought I was evil :-)

<ChrisLittle> * we know you are Ed.

<billroberts> So for the record, aiming for the coverage workgroup to publish a FPWD soon after TPAC, so have a draft ready for discussion/finalisation at the TPAC F2F

<ChrisLittle> Time scale for Time noted.

phila: coverages after TPAC, SSN after TPAC - timings to be put to W3C mgment in next few days to allow extension to June 2017

ChrisLittle: timescale for time deliverable looks feasible - based on Simon's doc - not tied too closely to ISO
... published by endo of July, Chris/Simon not at F2F

<phila> roba: Some of us, including Chris, will be together on Friday 24th at the TC in Dublin. I'll be looking at some QB descriptions of these coverage use cases

<phila> ... Hope to have something to feed in - talk to us in Dublin.

<billroberts> great, thanks Rob. Sorry, I can't make it to that Dublin meeting

<phila> ChrisLittle: Talked about Mark Hedley's work on WKT for non-Gregorian times

<phila> roba: Yep. Spoke to him today

thanks phil

UCR completion

kerry: asks frans: re UCR timing, needs

<ChrisLittle> Sorry folks, I have to leave now. Bye

<ChrisLittle> Bye

frans: asks group to look at open issues

<jtandy> [that's going to be difficult for BP editors as we must focus on the next release of BP]

<phila> issue-38?

<trackbot> issue-38 -- decide if and how to add the proposed use case -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38

frans: next iteration well before TPAC

andreaperego: INSPIRE conference after TPAC - opportunity to show work

<Kerry_> +1

andreaperego: deadline on Friday - abstract only needed - asks for interest, attending?

<Kerry_> +0

<billroberts> -1

<phila> +0 (no budget :-( )

<BartvanLeeuwen> -1

<frans> I do hope SDDWG will get lots of exposure at the INSPIRE conference

<jtandy> probably -1

<AndreaPerego> :(

<joshli> joshli -- expect to put a spatial ontology proposal (update of GeoSPARQL) on WebProtege tomorrow.

<ByronCinNZ> Maybe +.5

<eparsons> +0.5

+0

<RaulGarciaCastro> -1

<frans> Great news josh!

<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye

<billroberts> thanks, bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

<eparsons> thanks bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
 

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approved minutes
  2. ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR
  3. reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded "
  4. merge requirements
[End of minutes]